Eastern Whip-poor-will - Registre public des espèces en péril

Transcription

PROPOSED
Species at Risk Act
Recovery Strategy Series
Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Whip-poorwill (Antrostomus vociferus) in Canada
Eastern Whip-poor-will
2015
Recommended citation:
Environment Canada. 2015. Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Whip-poor-will
(Antrostomus vociferus) in Canada [Proposed]. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy
Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. v + 59 pp.
For copies of the recovery strategy, or for additional information on species at risk,
including COSEWIC Status Reports, residence descriptions, action plans, and other
related recovery documents, please visit the SAR Public Registry 1.
Cover illustration: © H. Loney Dickson
Également disponible sous le titre
« Programme de rétablissement de l’Engoulevent bois-pourri (Antrostomus vociferus)
au Canada [Proposition] »
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the
Environment, 2015. All rights reserved.
ISBN
Catalogue no.
Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate
credit to the source.
1
www.sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm
Recovery Strategy for the Eastern Whip-poor-will
2015
Preface
The federal, provincial, and territorial government signatories under the Accord for
the Protection of Species at Risk (1996)2 agreed to establish complementary
legislation and programs that provide for effective protection of species at risk
throughout Canada. Under the Species at Risk Act (S.C. 2002, c.29) (SARA), the
federal competent ministers are responsible for the preparation of recovery
strategies for listed Extirpated, Endangered, and Threatened species and are
required to report on progress five years after the publication of the final document
on the SAR Public Registry.
The Minister of the Environment and Minister responsible for the Parks Canada
agency is the competent minister under SARA for the Eastern Whip-poor-will and
has prepared this strategy, as per section 37 of SARA. To the extent possible, it
has been prepared in cooperation with the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario (Ministry of Natural Resources), Quebec (Ministère des Forêts, de la
Faune et des Parcs), New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as per section 39(1) of
SARA.
Success in the recovery of this species depends on the commitment and
cooperation of many different constituencies that will be involved in implementing
the directions set out in this strategy and will not be achieved by Environment
Canada and the Parks Canada Agency, or any other jurisdiction alone. All
Canadians are invited to join in supporting and implementing this strategy for the
benefit of the Eastern Whip-poor-will and the Canadian society as a whole.
This recovery strategy will be followed by one or more action plans that will
provide information on recovery measures to be taken by Environment Canada,
the Parks Canada Agency, and other jurisdictions and/or organizations involved in
the conservation of the species. Implementation of this strategy is subject to
appropriations, priorities, and budgetary constraints of the participating
jurisdictions and organizations.
2
http://registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=6B319869-1#2
i
2015
Acknowledgments
This recovery strategy was prepared by Vincent Carignan (Environment Canada,
Canadian Wildlife Service [EC-CWS]– Quebec region) and Mireille Poulin 3 based on an
initial draft by Kimberley Hair and Madison Wikston (EC-CWS- National Capital region)
and in collaboration with:
EC-CWS- Ontario region : Ken Tuininga, Mike Cadman, Megan Eplett, Krista Holmes,
Marie-Claude Archambault, Lyle Friesen, Jeff Robinson, Russ Weeber, Rich Russell,
Kari Van Allen, Madeline Austen, Elizabeth Rezek and Lesley Dunn.
EC-CWS - Atlantic region: Julie McKnight, Peter Thomas, Krista Baker,
David Andrews, Andrew Boyne and Becky Whittham.
EC-CWS- National Capital region: Manon Dubé and Adam Smith.
EC-CWS – Quebec region: Bruno Drolet, Gilles Falardeau and Geneviève Langlois.
EC-CWS – Prairie & Northern region: Mark Bidwell, Steven Van Wilgenburg and
Jon Conkin.
EC-CWS- Pacific & Yukon region: Pam Sinclair.
EC - Science & Technology: Junior Tremblay (Quebec region) et Scott Wilson (National
Capital region).
Department of National Defence (DND): Robert Werbiski (Montreal/Saint-Jean garrison)
Parks Canada Agency (PCA): Joanne Tuckwell, Leah de Forest,
Diane Amirault-Langlais and Eric Tremblay.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF): Chris Risley,
Aileen Rapson, Amanda Fracz and Jay Fitzsimmons (Species at Risk Branch);
Erica Barkley and Jennifer Hoare (Ontario Parks); Joe Nocera (Wildlife Research and
Monitoring Section); Southern Region: Jim Saunders, Brian Naylor (Forests Branch),
Todd Norris (Peterborough District), Eric Cobb, Nikki Boucher (Northeast Region).
Additional thanks go to: Maureen Toner (New Brunswick Departement of Natural
Resources), Audrey Heagy (Bird Studies Canada – Ontario); Narayan Dhital (Forest
Service, Saskatchewan); all other parties including Aboriginal organizations,
landowners, citizens, and stakeholders who provided comments on the present
document as well as Regroupement QuébecOiseaux, EC-CWS and Bird Studies
Canada for providing the data from the Breeding Bird Atlases in Canada, and the
thousands of volunteers that collected data for those projects.
3
Formerly with EC-CWS – Quebec region
ii
2015
Executive Summary
The Eastern Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferous) is a nocturnal insectivorous bird
that breeds in sparse forests or at the edge of forests adjacent to open habitats required
for foraging. The species was designated as Threatened by the Committee for the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 2009 and has been listed
under the same status in Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) since 2011.
An estimated 120 000 Eastern Whip-poor-will individuals (6% of the global population)
are found in Canada, where they breed in southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. National and
provincial population trends indicate a decline between 2.77% and 5.53% per year over
the 2002-2012 period.
Although our understanding of the causes of the decline of the Eastern Whip-poor-will
may be limited, the main threats include reduced availability of insect prey, agricultural
expansion and intensification (wintering and breeding grounds), urban expansion, as
well as energy development and mineral extraction. Other threats that contribute to a
lesser extent are also presented.
There are unknowns regarding the feasibility of recovery of the Eastern Whip-poor-will.
Nevertheless, in keeping with the precautionary principle, a recovery strategy has been
prepared as per section 41(1) of SARA as would be done when recovery is determined
to be feasible.
The population and distribution objectives for the Eastern Whip-poor-will in Canada are:
• In the short term: Slow the decline such that the population does not decrease by
more than 10% (i.e. 12 000 individuals) over the 2015-2025 period, and maintain
the area of occupancy at 3,000 km2 or above;
• In the long term: Ensure a positive 10-year population trend starting in 2025,
while favouring an increase in the area of occupancy, including the gradual
recolonization of areas in the southern portion of the breeding distribution.
Broad strategies and approaches to achieve these objectives are presented in the
Strategic Direction for Recovery section.
Critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will is partially identified in this recovery
strategy. It corresponds to the areas of suitable nesting and/or foraging habitats within
all 10 x 10 km standardized UTM squares with confirmed breeding or multiple
occupancy since 2001. Overall, 212 critical habitat units are identified for the Eastern
Whip-poor-will, including 32 in Manitoba, 110 in Ontario, 65 in Quebec, and five in the
Maritimes (all in New Brunswick). A schedule of studies outlines the activities required
to complete the identification of critical habitat.
One or more action plans will be posted on the Species at Risk Public Registry before
the end of 2020.
iii
2015
Recovery Feasibility Summary
Based on the following four criteria that Environment Canada uses to establish recovery
feasibility, there are unknowns regarding the feasibility of recovery of the Eastern
Whip-poor-will. Therefore, in keeping with the precautionary principle, this recovery
strategy has been prepared as per section 41(1) of SARA as would be done when
recovery is determined to be feasible. This recovery strategy addresses the unknowns
surrounding the feasibility of recovery.
1. Individuals of the wildlife species that are capable of reproduction are
available now or in the foreseeable future to sustain the population or improve
its abundance.
Yes. Breeding individuals are currently distributed in multiple areas of the Canadian
breeding distribution as well as in the United States.
2. Sufficient suitable habitat is available to support the species or could be made
available through habitat management or restoration.
Unknown. Sufficient suitable breeding habitat is available to support the species at
its current level. Unoccupied and apparently suitable habitat appears to be available
and additional habitats could become suitable after restoration efforts or through
natural processes (e.g., succession, fires) or human activities (e.g., forest
harvesting). The availability of sufficient amounts of migrating and wintering habitats
is unknown.
3. The primary threats to the species or its habitat (including threats outside
Canada) can be avoided or mitigated.
Unknown. Clarifying the impacts of some of the threats, namely the existence of
possible thresholds in habitat loss as well as in the availability of insect prey
populations would help establish more precise beneficial management practices. It
is unknown whether threats such as reduced insect prey populations and threats to
the wintering areas can be mitigated.
4. Recovery techniques exist to achieve the population and distribution
objectives or can be expected to be developed within a reasonable timeframe.
Unknown. Habitat conservation and stewardship, along with habitat management
techniques, could be effective for this species although specific management
practices need to be developed and implemented. Mitigating threats, such as
reduced insect prey populations and habitat availability on the wintering areas
represent considerable challenges.
iv
2015
Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................ii
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ iii
Recovery Feasibility Summary ........................................................................................iv
1. COSEWIC Species Assessment Information ............................................................ 1
2. Species Status Information ....................................................................................... 1
3. Species Information .................................................................................................. 2
3.1 Species Description ............................................................................................ 2
3.2 Population and Distribution ................................................................................. 3
3.3 Needs of the Eastern Whip-poor-will .................................................................. 5
4. Threats ...................................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Threat Assessment ............................................................................................. 8
4.2 Description of Threats ......................................................................................... 9
5. Population and Distribution Objectives ................................................................... 15
6. Broad Strategies and General Approaches to Meet Objectives .............................. 16
6.1 Actions Already Completed or Currently Underway .......................................... 16
6.2 Strategic Direction for Recovery ....................................................................... 18
6.3 Narrative to Support the Recovery Planning Table ........................................... 21
7. Critical Habitat......................................................................................................... 22
7.1 Identification of the Species’ Critical Habitat ..................................................... 22
7.2 Schedule of Studies to Identify Critical Habitat ................................................. 26
7.3 Activities Likely to Result in the Destruction of Critical Habitat ......................... 27
8. Measuring Progress ................................................................................................ 29
9. Statement on Action Plans ...................................................................................... 30
10. References............................................................................................................ 30
Appendix A: Critical Habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will in Canada ......................... 42
Appendix B. Effects on the Environment and Other Species ........................................ 59
v
1.
2015
COSEWIC* Species Assessment Information
Date of Assessment: April 2009
Common Name: Eastern Whip-poor-will
Scientific Name: Antrostomus vociferus
COSEWIC Status: Threatened
Reason for Designation: In Canada, this well-known, nocturnal bird has
experienced both long-term and short-term population declines. Indices of
abundance indicate that populations have been reduced by more than 30% over
the last 10 years (i.e. 3 generations). Like other aerial foraging insectivores,
habitat loss and degradation as well as changes to the insect prey base may have
affected Canadian populations.
Canadian Occurrence: Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec,
New Brunswick, Nova Scotia
COSEWIC Status History: Designated Threatened in April 2009.
* Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. The information presented in this box,
including the species’ scientific name, reflects the state of knowledge at the time the species was
evaluated.
2.
Species Status Information
Approximately 6% of the global population and 20% of the breeding distribution of the
Eastern Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferous) is found in Canada (COSEWIC 2009;
Partners in Flight Science Committee 2013). The species was listed as Threatened on
Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA; S.C. 2002, c. 29) in April 2011. It is listed
as Threatened under three provincial Endangered Species Acts: Ontario (S.O. 2007,
c. 6), Nova Scotia (S.N.S. 1998, ch. 11), and Manitoba (C.C.C.S.M. c. E111, 1990), as
well as under New Brunswick’s Species at Risk Act (SNB 2012, c. 6). In Quebec, the
species is listed as Likely to be designated as Threatened or vulnerable on the List of
Wildlife Species Likely to be Designated Threatened or Vulnerable 4 produced according
to the Act Respecting Threatened or Vulnerable Species (CQLR, c. E-12.01). As of
November 2014, the species was not listed in Saskatchewan nor Prince Edward Island.
NatureServe (2014) considers the global populations of the Eastern Whip-poor-will to be
Secure (G5). The species’ breeding populations are Apparently Secure (N4B) in
4
With respect to the acquisition of knowledge, special attention is given to species on the List of species
likely to be designated threatened or vulnerable.
1
2015
Canada and Secure (N5B) in the United States. Table 1 provides further details on
other conservation ranks in Canada.
Table 1. Conservation Status Ranks for the Breeding Populations of the Eastern
Whip-poor-will in Canada (NatureServe 2014).
Region
Nature Serve a
Saskatchewan
Vulnerable (S3B)
Manitoba
Vulnerable (S3B)
Ontario
Apparently Secure (S4B)
Quebec
Vulnerable (S3)
New Brunswick
Imperiled (S2B)
Prince Edward Island
Non-breeder (SNA)
Nova Scotia
Critically Imperiled (S1?B)
a
Conservation status ranks: NA: Not Applicable; ?: Inexact numerical rank; B: Breeding. For
subnational ranks (by state) in the United States, refer to NatureServe’s website
http://explorer.natureserve.org/. Note that some of these ranks have not been reviewed recently.
3.
Species Information
The scientific name of the Eastern Whip-poor-will has been modified twice following the
publication of the COSEWIC status report (2009). Initially, the Eastern Whip-poor-will
(Caprimulgus vociferus vociferus) was considered a subspecies of the Whip-poor-will
and encompased all the eastern populations of the species’ breeding distribution. In
2010, it was separated from its close relative, the Mexican Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus
arizonea), to form a new species by itself, the Eastern Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus
vociferus) (Chesser et al. 2010). In 2012, the Antrostomus genus name, that was used
for this species until 1931, was restored for the Eastern Whip-poor-will (refer to Chesser
et al. 2012 for further details).
3.1
Species Description
Cink (2002) describes the Eastern Whip-poor-will as a nocturnal aerial insectivorous
bird of the Caprimulgidae family (typical nightjars). It measures around 24 cm long and
weighs 50 to 55 g. Its plumage is grey and brown, which serves to blend individuals with
elements of the forest ground where they nest. Individuals have rounded wings and tail
feathers and a large and flattened head with a small bill and big gape, bordered by long
sensory bristles. Males differ from females in that they have a white collar and two big
white patches on their outer tail feathers (smaller and buff-colored in females). Eastern
Whip-poor-wills bear a striking resemblance to Common Nighthawks but lack the white
patches on the wings and vocalizations are very distinct. As nocturnal birds, individuals
are more often heard than seen and their distinct three-noted song “WHIP-poor-WEEL”
is at the origin of the species’ name.
2
3.2
2015
Population and Distribution
The global breeding distribution of the Eastern Whip-poor-will is approximately
2 772 000 km2 (COSEWIC 2009). It extends from Saskatchewan to the Maritimes and
south in the United States, west to east from Oklahoma to Georgia (Cink 2002;
Figure 1). The Eastern Whip-poor-will breeds locally throughout its range and no
northward range expansion has been noted (Cink 2002). The global population is
estimated at 2 million individuals (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2013). The
Eastern Whip-poor-will’s overwintering range stretches from coastal South Carolina
through Florida and along the Gulf Coast of the United States into Mexico and Central
America as far south as Honduras and Panama (Cink 2002; Figure 1).
The Canadian breeding distribution occupies around 535 000 km2 (20% of the global
breeding distribution) (COSEWIC 2009) from east-central Saskatchewan, southern
Manitoba, southern Ontario, southern Quebec, and sparse locations in New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island (Godfrey 1986; Cink 2002; Maritimes Breeding
Bird Atlas 2013). The Canadian population is estimated at 120 000 individuals, with the
highest concentrations found in eastern Ontario (Partners in Flight Science Committee
2013). Although this estimate incorporates atlas data, it is mainly based on data from
the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), and is considered to have relatively
low accuracy for the Eastern Whip-poor-will as this survey program is not designed to
detect nocturnal birds (Partners in Flight Science Committee 2013). Also, the Breeding
Bird Survey data does not sample the species’ entire range at random, having lower
coverage in more remote areas.
3
2015
Figure 1: Global range of the Eastern Whip-poor-will, which includes the breeding,
overwintering and migration distributions (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2007)
The Eastern Whip-poor-will’s range within Canada has been retracting since the
mid-1960s, most notably at its southern limit (Smith 1996; COSEWIC 2009). A
comparison of the data from the first and second breeding bird atlases in Ontario and
the Maritimes show a similar trend (Table 2). Although the atlas records have yet to be
compiled for the last survey year of the second breeding bird atlas in Quebec, results
indicate a slight increase in occupancy (Table 2). Differences in atlas square occupancy
between successive atlases should be considered with caution as they can be the result
of different levels of effort to detect the species.
Using BBS data, a Canada-wide population decline of 3.19% per year has been noted
over the 1970-2012 period, or an approximate loss of 75% of the population
(Environment Canada 2014a). Over the 2002-2012 period, this national trend has
slightly slowed to a decline of 2.77% per year. Regional BBS trends for Ontario and
Quebec, the core of the species’ distribution in Canada, are consistent with the national
trend (Table 2). Data from the Quebec check-list program (Étude des populations
d’oiseaux du Quebec - EPOQ) also corroborate these trends with a 2002-2011
population estimated to be about half that observed in the 1970’s (Larivée 2013). It
should be noted that declines are observed not only at the species level but also among
the guild of aerial insectivores and long-distance migrants to which the Eastern
Whip-poor-will belongs (Blancher et al. 2009).
4
2015
Table 2. Breeding Bird Atlases Data and Regional Breeding Bird Survey Trends.
Number of Occupied
Atlas Squares
st
nd
(trend 1 vs 2
atlas)
BBS Annual
Trends
(1970-2012 /
2002-2012)
Atlas References
b,c
~36
Not available
Smith 1996; SBA
Not available
www.birdatlas.mb.ca
Atlas
Periods
Provinces
Saskatchewan
1966-2014
Manitoba
2010-2013
c
190
1981-1985
885
Ontario
2001-2005
554
(-37%)
1984-1989
168
Quebec
Gauthier and Aubry 1996
179
(+7%)
62
(49 NB, 12 NS, 1 PE)
+0.53% / -0.09%
d
(NB)
c
Maritimes
2006-2010
Cadman et al. 2007
-5.26% / -5.53%
2010-2013
1986-1990
Cadman et al. 1987
-3.45% / -3.36%
38 (-39%)
Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs
du Québec 2014
Erskine 1992
(29 NB, 8 NS, 1 PE)
Maritimes Breeding Bird
Atlas 2013
b
The Saskatchewan Bird Atlas (SBA) is not based on a standardized survey methodology. Data are
reported continually in a web-based application (gisweb1.serm.gov.sk.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=birds). Atlas
squares correspond to the National Topographic System 1: 250 000 grids (nrcan.gc.ca/earthsciences/geography/topographic-information/maps/9765) rather than the standard 10 x 10 km used in
atlases.
c
Ongoing projects.
d
Trends are not available for the other provinces in the Maritimes due to the limited number of routes on
which the species was detected.
3.3
Needs of the Eastern Whip-poor-will
Eastern Whip-poor-wills, like most forest birds, appear to rely on multi-scale
considerations for habitat selection. Knowledge of the species’ requirements at the
landscape scale as well as during migrations and on the wintering grounds are currently
limited.
Regional Context
The amount of forest cover, by providing more areas suitable for breeding, as well as
the spatial configuration of forest habitats next to more open habitats are often reported
as central to the species’ presence (Roy and Bombardier 1996; Palmer-Ball 1996; Cink
2002, Wilson 2003; Garlapow 2007). Distance to larger forest tracts may also be
important (Cink 2002), namely in more agricultural settings where the amount of nesting
habitat is more limited.
Nesting and Foraging Habitats
The nesting and foraging habitats of the Eastern Whip-poor-will are usually defined by
structural rather that compositional characteristics (Robbins 1994; Wilson and Watts
5
2015
2008). Although the species is not considered particularly territorial, territory size ranges
from 3 to 30 ha (Wilson 2003; Garlapow 2007; Hunt 2010) with a maximum value of
132.4 ha observed in central Ontario (mean 31 ha; Rand 2014). Home range size, the
area within which birds are expected to be found most of the time as they conduct
breeding activities, forage and move between these zones, can vary from 20 to 500 ha
(mean 136 ha; Rand 2014). This is in line with Sandilands’ (2010) estimation that 500 to
1000 ha may be necessary to support “more than a few pairs”.
Nesting habitats
Nesting habitats include most types of forest at early stages of succession (or edges of
forests with a dense tree cover but showing a similar structure at the ground level), rock
or sand barrens with scattered trees, savannahs, old burns, as well as sparse conifer
plantations (Wilson 1985; Bushman and Therres 1988; Cink, 2002; Mills 2007; Wilson
and Watts 2008; Tozer et al. 2014). All these habitats exhibit characteristics such as
well-drained soils, moderate tree cover (Godfrey 1986; Roy and Bombardier 1996; 26 to
83 % in Garlapow 2007) and moderate to sparse shrub and herbaceous cover
(Eastman 1991; Garlapow 2007).
When woodlots are used for nesting (e.g., in agricultural landscapes), smaller isolated
woodlots are not occupied by the species (Reese 1996), suggesting that there may be a
threshold in forest patch size. However, Turpak et al. (2009) state that no threshold for
size has been identified for the moment. Elevation also seems to play a role with the
species usually being found at altitudes lower than 350 to 430 m (Cooper 1981;
Robbins 1994; Roy and Bombardier 1996).
Although nests and eggs are very well camouflaged and rarely found, eggs are known
to be layed directly on a thick bed of dead leaves (or bare ground), shaded by a short
herbaceous plant, shrub or sapling (Roy and Bombardier 1996; Cink 2002), often
near fallen tree limbs or rocks which can be used as perches to roost during the day
(Cink 2002). Individuals appear to show a high degree of fidelity to nest sites
(Cink 2002).
Foraging habitats
Foraging habitats include prairies, wetlands with shrubs, regenerating clearcuts as well
as agricultural fields and other habitats with low tree cover and availability of foraging
perches as these conditions favor the localisation of prey (lunar light) as well as foraging
efficiency (Mills 1986; Garlapow 2007).
Foraging activities usually take place within 500 m of the nest, often near forest edges
(Cink 2002; Garlapow 2007). However, at the northern edge of the species’ distribution,
Rand (2014) showed significantly greater foraging distances that may result from
reduced habitat quality and reduced flying insect abundance in regions where low
temperatures hinder foraging activities.
6
2015
Prey items consist mainly of large moths, scarab beetles and other nocturnal flying
insects captured by sallying short distances from perches or picked directly on the
ground (Tyler 1940; Cink 2002; Garlapow 2007).
Limiting Factors
Limiting factors influence a species’ survival and reproduction, and play a major role in
the capacity to attain certain population levels (recover following a decline). For the
Eastern Whip-poor-will, these include:
•
•
Low annual productivity: although the species may double-brood in some areas
in southern Canada, it generally has a single small clutch consisting of two eggs
(Peck and James 1983; Sandilands 2010).
High predation: as a ground nester, the species may be particularly vulnerable to
nest predation (Cink 2002).
7
4.
Threats
4.1
Threat Assessment
2015
Table 3. Threat assessment for the Eastern Whip-poor-will.
Level of
Concerne
Extent
Occurrence
Frequency
Severityf
Causal
Certaintyg
Agricultural expansion and
Intensification – wintering grounds
High
Widespread
Current
Continuous
Moderate
High
Agricultural expansion and
intensification – breeding grounds
Medium
Localized
Current
Continuous
Moderate
High
Urban expansion
Medium
Localized
Current
Continuous
Moderate
Medium
Energy development and mineral
extraction
Medium
Localized
Current
Continuous
Moderate
Medium
Overgrazing of forest understory
Low
Localized
Current
Continuous
Moderate
Medium
Forest management
Low
Widespread
Current
Continuous
Low
Low
Threat
Habitat Loss or Degradation
Changes in Ecological Dynamics or Natural Processes
Reduced availability of insect prey
High
Widespread
Current
Continuous
Unknown
Medium
Fire suppression
Low
Localized
Current
Recurrent
Low
Low
Medium
Localized
Current
Continuous
Moderate
Medium
Medium
Widespread
Current
Continuous
Unknown
Medium
Natural Processes or Activities
Habitat succession
Climate and Natural Disasters
Climate change
e
Level of Concern: signifies that managing the threat is of (high, medium or low) concern for the recovery of the species, consistent with
the population and distribution objectives. This criterion considers the assessment of all the information in the table.
f
Severity: reflects the population-level effect (high: very large population-level effect, moderate, low, unknown).
g
Causal certainty: reflects the degree of evidence that is known for the threat (high: available evidence strongly links the threat to
stresses on population viability; medium: there is a correlation between the threat and population viability, e.g., expert opinion; low: the
threat is assumed or plausible).
8
4.2
2015
Description of Threats
Threats are listed in decreasing order of level of concern. It should be noted that there
are knowledge gaps relating to the quantitative impacts of some of the threats,
particularly during migrations and on the wintering grounds. Secondary threats are not
discussed in the present recovery strategy, namely collisions (e.g., with vehicles along
roads), predation, interspecific competition (Chuck-will’s willow [Antrostomus
carolinensis]) and invasive species (exotic earthworms).
4.2.1. Reduced Availability of Insect Prey
The decline of aerial insectivores has been more obvious since the 1980s (Goldstein
et al. 1999; Boettner et al. 2000; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004; Sauer et al. 1996;
Blancher et al. 2007) and strongly suggests a cause related to changes in aerial insect
populations on the breeding grounds, migration routes or wintering grounds (Nebel et al.
2010; Paquette et al. 2014). Indeed, insect populations are exhibiting significant
declines worldwide, including in the United States (Laughlin and Kibbe 1985; Peterson
and Meservey 2003). A recent review of global faunal population trends, noted that
33% of all insects with available IUCN-documented population trends were declining
and many also exhibited range retractions (Dirzo et al. 2014). Declines are more severe
in heavily disturbed regions, such as the tropics (Dirzo et al. 2014). In the northeastern
United States, Wagner (2012) noted declines for many nocturnal moths, the preferred
prey items for Eastern Whip-poor-will (Cink 2002).
The main possible causes for reduced availability of insect prey are identified and
described below. Additional causes include changes in the predator communities, light
proliferation, and acid precipitation (Graveland 1998; Benton et al. 2002; Wagner 2012;
Goulson 2013). However, a direct causal effect between aerial insectivore abundance
and insect populations has yet to be established, partly because long-term monitoring
data on avian diets are limited (Nocera et al. 2012).
4.2.1.1. Loss of insect producing habitats
Many insects are limited to specific habitats for all or part of their life cycle and any
activities that affect these habitats through habitat loss or intensification of uses
(e.g., monocultures, pesticide and fertilizer-dependent crops; traditional versus
conservation tillage; removal of hedgerows, wetland drainage, peat extraction, urban
and coastal development; resource extraction; herbicides to control vegetation in utility
rights-of-ways) would have impacts on their populations (U.S. Bureau of Land
Management 1978, Foster 1991; Benton et al. 2002, Cunningham et al. 2004; Price
et al. 2011, Brooks et al. 2012; Chiron et al. 2014).
Loss of insect producing habitats would affect Eastern Whip-poor-wills on the breeding
grounds, along migration routes and on their wintering grounds.
9
2015
4.2.1.2. Pesticides and other toxins
The use of pesticide in agriculture, forestry, and for mosquito control programs in urban
areas has undoubtedly been a factor in the reduction of the abundance of flying insects
throughout the Eastern Whip-poor-will’s distribution.
Although most organochlorine pesticides (chemicals in the same family as
dichlorodiphenyltricholoroethane – DDT) have been banned in North America for
decades, there is indication that Neotropical migrant insectivores are still being exposed
to their effects elsewhere in the Americas (Sager 1997, Klemens et al. 2000). These
chemicals can have long-lasting effects on insect communities and thus the birds that
rely on them. Dietary records of Chimney Swifts (Chaetura pelagica), an aerial
insectivore, confirm a marked decrease in beetles (Coleoptera) and an increase in true
bugs (Hemiptera) that was temporally correlated with a steep rise in DDT and its
metabolites. Nocera et al. (2012) argued that DDT caused declines in Coleoptera and
dramatic (possibly permanent) shifts in the insect communities, resulting in a
nutrient-poor diet and ultimately a declining Chimney Swift population.
Non-selective pesticides, such as the widely used neonicotinoids, have also been
shown to affect aerial insectivores by reducing their prey populations and impairing
reproduction (Colburn et al. 1993, Wickramasinghe et al. 2004; Mineau and Palmer
2013; Hallmann et al. 2014). Neonicotinoids are generally used in agricultural habitats,
but have been detected in wetlands (Main et al. 2014) and waterways in Canada
(Environment Canada 2011a, Xing et al. 2013). In 2013, the European Food Safety
Authority declared that they posed an ‘unacceptable” risk to insects (Goulson 2014).
Mineau and Palmer (2013) suggested that the effects of neonicotinoids on birds may
not be limited to the farm scale, but likely expand to the watershed or regional scale.
Although not necessarily related to a decline in flying insect populations, the
consumption of mercury-contaminated insects has been shown to decrease
reproductive success, alter immune responsiveness, and cause behavioural and
physiological effects in many insectivorous bird species (Scheuhammer et al. 2007,
Hawley et al. 2009). Increased mercury levels may result from multiple causes (e.g.,
acid depositions, creation of reservoirs) and many terrestrial songbirds of northeastern
North America that eat invertebrates have been found to biomagnify the substance to
level that may be of conservation concern (Osborne et al. 2011; Keller et al. (2014).
Although the Eastern Whip-poor-will was not part of these studies, the conclusions likely
apply to the species.
4.2.1.3. Insect/breeding temporal mismatch
Birds often exhibit a strong synchronization between their reproductive timing (i.e.
hatching) and peak food abundance, but climate change has caused the timing of peaks
in some insects to occur sooner in the season (Both et al. 2009). Because warming may
be less severe on the Eastern Whip-poor-will’s wintering grounds than on their breeding
10
2015
grounds, they may experience migration cues at dates that are too late for them to
arrive at breeding grounds at the optimal time (Jones and Cresswell 2010). As a result,
climate change is creating a temporal mismatch between reproduction and maximal
prey abundance (i.e. insects) for species that are not adapting to the changing climate
at the same rate as their prey (Strode 2003; Both et al. 2006; Gornish and Tylianakis,
2013). This has been shown to affect the weight of Great Tit (Parus major) chicks and
the number of chicks that fledge (Visser et al. 2006). An insect/breeding temporal
mismatch has also been linked to the population declines of migrant birds across
Europe (Møller et al. 2008, Saino et al. 2011).
Long-distance migratory birds that breed in habitats where the peaks of food abundance
are shorter (such as forests) are more vulnerable to climate change because the
temporal mismatch is more likely and more severe (Both et al. 2006, Both et al. 2009).
Although no species-specific data are currently available, the Eastern Whip-poor-will is
a long-distance migratory aerial insectivore that breeds / forages in habitats where
peaks of food abundance are shorter (usally late Spring/early Summer), so a climateinduced mismatch between breeding and prey availability is probable.
4.2.2. Agricultural Expansion and Intensification – wintering grounds
On the wintering grounds in Mexico and Central America, since the early 1900s, forest
conversion into pastures for cattle ranching through slash-and-burn agriculture has
driven the majority of deforestation (Leonard 1987; Masek et al. 2011; Aide et al. 2013).
In that region, the countries that experienced the most forest area loss between 2001
and 2010 are Guatemala and Nicaragua, representing 3 019 km2 and 7 961 km2
respectively (Aide et al. 2013) but most countries exhibit substantial declines in forest
cover (Hansen et al. 2013). Although Eastern Whip-poor-wills may benefit from habitat
created by some types of conversion for cattle pastures, intensive conversion that
eliminates corridors and leaves little to no forested habitat adjacent to open habitats
used for foraging decreases habitat suitability.
The impact of this threat on the decline of the Eastern Whip-poor-will has not been
quantified, but it is viewed as a concern because of the species’ concentration in a
limited amount of winter habitat.
4.2.3. Agricultural Expansion and Intensification – breeding grounds
In Canada, the increased demand for agricultural land was responsible for
approximately 43% of the deforestation in 2010 (~20 000 ha), mainly in Alberta,
Saskatchewan, and Manitoba where the boreal forest borders the prairies 5. In the
eastern United States, rates of conversion of forest to agricultural land have slowed
considerably in recent years (Ramankutty et al. 2010; Masek et al. 2011) and many
areas are returning to a forested state.
5
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/inventory/13419
11
2015
Efforts to increase the productivity of agricultural lands have led to the loss of large
natural habitats, loss of habitat diversity in agricultural landscapes (e.g. conversion to
row crops, elimination of hedges and other natural features), and an increase in
pollution from nutrients and pesticides used on crops, all of which affect biodiversity
(Robinson and Sutherland 2002). Insectivorous bird abundance and richness are higher
in agricultural landscapes that provide a heterogenous array of habitats (Parish et al.
1995; Jones et al. 2005), which are also home to more insect prey (Lewis and
Stephenson 1966; Lewis and Dibley 1970; Verboom and Spoelstra 1999). Furthermore,
landscapes that are highly simplified (e.g., dominated by hard edges between intensive
crops and adjacent forests) may not provide enough suitable habitat for the Eastern
Whip-poor-will. In Quebec, it has been noticed that the species avoids large areas of
intensive agriculture (Cyr and Larivée 1995; Bélanger et al. 1999). In southern Ontario,
the conversion of open grasslands and thickets to intensive agriculture has also been
identifed as a threat to the species (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2009).
4.2.4. Urban Expansion
Urban development is an increasing threat that leads to permanent habitat losses both
in suburban and rural areas. It is considered the leading cause of deforestation in the
United States, as well as a major contributing factor in Canada (17%)(Robinson et al.
2005; Radeloff et al. 2005; Sun et al. 2007; Masek et al. 2011; Jobin et al. 2014). In
Pennsylvania (USA), urbanization, through the increase of predation and the decrease
in availability of nesting and foraging habitat, is presumed responsible for the decline of
the Eastern Whip-poor-will (Santner 1992).
Habitat loss and fragmentation by urbanization may also increase water, air, noise and
light pollution. Ecological light pollution has been proven to disrupt predator-prey
dynamics, competition dynamics, nest site choice, orientation and communication for a
variety of animals (Longcore and Rich 2004). It could also have positive components
(e.g., better foraging efficiency).
4.2.5. Energy Development and Mineral Extraction
Exploration to find new energy sources (e.g., oil, gas, coal and hydroelectricity) and
minerals (including aggregates), exploitation of these sources (e.g., mine residues,
flooding of areas to create reservoirs) and their transportation (e.g., pipelines,
transmission lines, roads) have generated habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation
in some areas of the Eastern Whip-poor-will’s distribution (Masek et al. 2011). Activities
associated with these industries can also lead to the unintentional destruction of nest,
eggs, nestling, and/or adults (Van Wilgenburg et al. 2013).
Rand (2014) found that Eastern Whip-poor-wills did not show elevated stress levels
(measured by corticosterone) from exposure to mining exploration activities.
Otherwise, quantitative effects of the more active exploitation phase of mining on
Eastern Whip-poor-will populations have not been measured, but are presumed to be
important given that habitat alterations by these activities are often permanent.
12
2015
The maintenance of some infrastructures used to transport energy can generate habitat
that will eventually be suitable for foraging.
4.2.6. Overgrazing of forest understory
Forests overgrazed by cattle are usually avoided for nesting purposes by the Eastern
Whip-poor-will (Tyler 1940; Godfrey 1986), although they may be used for foraging if
suitable nesting habitat is nearby (Cink 2002). Deer grazing can also be problematic in
some areas as their populations have been increasing for decades (Russell et al. 2001).
In Canada, cattle overgrazing has been identified as a factor contributing to the
disappearance of the species, particularly in south-eastern Saskatchewan’s aspen
forests (Smith 1996; Jorgenson and Foster 2007).
Whatever the source, overgrazing of forest understory decreases vegetation cover and
modifies plant community composition and dynamics (Patric and Helvey 1986; Côté
et al. 2004; Rooney 2009; Goetsch et al. 2011), which in turn negatively affects wildlife
by altering nest cover and food sources (Gallizioli 1979; DeGraaf et al. 1991; Pollard
and Cooke 1994; Gill 2000; Allombert et al. 2005). At present, it is unknown how this
threat is affecting the Eastern Whip-poor-will’s population, but it would be prominent in
northeastern United States and south-eastern Canada where White-tailed Deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) are particularly abundant (Russell et al. 2001).
4.2.7. Habitat Succession
In forested landscapes, the Eastern Whip-poor-will often takes advantage of the open
areas created by low-intensity agriculture or forest management for foraging, while
relying on adjacent forests for nesting (COSEWIC 2009). Agricultural land abandonment
creates early- and mid-successional forests that can, at first, provide suitable habitat for
the species, but succession eventually leads to older forest stages, which are not
preferred habitats (Bushman and Therres 1988).
Although cropland areas have increased over the past 50 years in most of the Eastern
Whip-poor-will’s range in southern Canada, succession of abandoned farmland has
been the trend in marginal areas (Cadman et al. 2007; Latendresse et al. 2008), such
as eastern Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2009) and the eastern United
States where this succession has been implicated in the Eastern Whip-poor-wills’
decline (Medler 2008). In those areas, forest succession may have caused some
degree of nesting/foraging habitat loss for the Eastern Whip-poor-will (Mills 2007;
Smith 1996).
4.2.8. Climate Change
The potential effects of climate change on the Eastern Whip-poor-will can be difficult to
predict because different bird species respond differently to spatial and temporal
variations in their environment (Taper et al. 1995). One effect, the increase in the
13
2015
number of severe weather events (cold snaps, hurricanes, wind storms), can have an
impacts on the breeding grounds, along the migration routes and on the wintering
grounds. Cold, wet weather during the breeding season is well known for affecting aerial
insectivores (e.g., Brown and Brown 2000). Such fluctuations and weather extremes are
expected to occur more frequently due to climate change (Huber and Gulledge 2011).
Fire activity is also strongly influenced by weather (Flannigan et al. 2009) and the
extent, intensity, and frequency of forest fires are projected to increase due to warmer
springs and summers and decreases in water availability in some areas (Flannigan
et al. 2009, North American Bird Conservation Initiative US Committee 2010, de Groot
et al. 2013, Girardin et al. 2013). This would have a positive effect on Eastern
Whip-poor-will habitat availability.
During the Fall migration, tropical storms and hurricanes can kill individuals in large
numbers; a single hurricane (Hurricane Wilma in 2005) led to a decline of 50% in the
population of the Chimney Swift in Québec (Dionne et al. 2008). On the tropical and
subtropical wintering areas, Anodon et al. (2014) suggest that climate change will result
in the expansion of savannahs at the expense of forests, which could eventually affect
Eastern Whip-poor-wills.
4.2.9. Fire Suppression
The Eastern Whip-poor-will may be associated with habitat created by fires (Cink 2002).
Fire in a natural system may provide a shifting mosaic of nesting and foraging habitat.
Modern fire suppression may keep forest stands into a more mature stage, less suitable
for the species. Fire suppression has been identified as one of the causes of the bird’s
decline in Ontario (Mills 2007; Tozer et al. 2014). The extent of this threat is not
quantified for Eastern Whip-poor-will populations but would mostly affect the northern
(non-agricultural) portion of the range.
4.2.10. Forest Management
Between 2000 and 2012, approximately 11 million ha of forest were harvested
throughout Canada (NFD 2014). Forest harvesting rates in most of Canada have been
relatively stable throughout the past 20 years but are expected to decline in the coming
years (Masek et al. 2011).
Forest harvesting can have short term negative effects on nesting birds by disrupting
breeding activities (Hobson et al. 2013). The nests and/or eggs can be inadvertently
harmed or disturbed as a result of clearing trees and other vegetation (e.g. precommercial thinning) (Environment Canada 2014b). Nesting failure could also result
from disruptive activities experienced by a nesting bird (Environment Canada 2014b).
Hobson et al. (2013) estimated that between 616,000 and 2.09 million nests (of many
species) are lost annually as a result of industrial forest harvesting.
14
2015
However, forest management can also improve habitat through practices such as
clearcut interspersion with mature forests (Wilson and Watts 2008, Tozer et al. 2014),
variable density thinning, early thinning and other aspects of partial cutting (Bushman
and Therres 1988).
Much of the northern distribution of the Eastern Whip-poor-will in Canada is under forest
management. Forest harvesting is also a prevalent activity along the migratory routes
and on the wintering grounds.
5.
Population and Distribution Objectives
The population and distribution objectives for the Eastern Whip-poor-will in Canada are:
•
•
In the short term: Slow the decline such that the population does not decrease by
more than 10% (i.e. 12 000 individuals) over the 2015-2025 period, and maintain
the area of occupancy at 3,000 km2 or above.
In the long term: Ensure a positive 10-year population trend starting in 2025,
while favouring an increase in the area of occupancy, including the gradual
recolonization of areas in the southern portion of the breeding range.
These objectives address the species’ long-term decline, which was the reason for its
designation as Threatened (COSEWIC 2009). The 10-year time frame for the short term
objectives corresponds to the period between successive COSEWIC assessments of a
species status and is considered reasonable given the challenge halting the Eastern
Whip-poor-will’s decline represents. The area of occupancy provided corresponds to the
COSEWIC (2009) estimate (33 000 Eastern Whip-poor-will pairs occupying 1,650 km2)
but with the updated Canadian population (120 000 individuals or 60 000 pairs)
provided by the Partners in Flight Science Committee (2013), for a total of 3,000 km2.
As for the long term objectives, due to the substantial loss of suitable habitat in the
southern portion of the species’ range (agricultural and urban landscapes), it may be
unrealistic to bring Eastern Whip-poor-will populations back to their historical levels.
Nevertheless, ensuring that suitable habitat is available throughout the species’ range in
Canada, including through restoration of habitats in highly transformed landscapes, is
necessary for the management and recovery of the Eastern Whip-poor-will.
These objectives may be reviewed during the development of the report required five
years after this strategy is posted to assess the implementation of the strategy and the
progress towards meeting its objectives (s. 46 SARA).
15
6.
Broad Strategies and General Approaches to Meet
Objectives
6.1
Actions Already Completed or Currently Underway
2015
Numerous activities have been initiated since the latest COSEWIC assessment (2009).
The following list is not exhaustive, but is meant to illustrate the main areas where work
is already underway, to give context to the broad strategies outlined in section 6.2.
- Multiple projects targeting the Eastern Whip-poor-will on federal, provincial and
private lands with funding from the Habitat Stewardship Program, the
Interdepartmental Recovery Fund and the Aboriginal Fund for Species at Risk.
Manitoba
•
Surveys on Department of National Defence establishments.
Saskatchewan
•
Research underway on the broad-scale predictors of aerial insectivorous bird
declines across North America (Dr. Christy Morrissey’s Ecotoxicology Lab at the
University of Saskatchewan http://homepage.usask.ca/~cam202/page11.html).
Ontario
•
•
•
•
General Habitat Description completed under the Endangered Species Act, 2007
http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/eastern-whip-poor-will
Roadside surveys conducted by Bird Studies Canada (2010-ongoing) and
provincial partners such as Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in many
districts and Ontario Parks (e.g., Algonquin Park).
Study on habitat use, types of forest management and landscape characteristics
is underway (Philina English – Simon Fraser University; John Vandenbroeck OMNRF Fort Frances District; English and Conboy 2013).
Surveys on Department of National Defence establishments.
Quebec
•
•
•
Roadside surveys coordinated by Regroupement QuebecOiseaux on
25 permanent BBS-style routes in agricultural landscapes (2012-ongoing).
Surveys along potential routes in the Outaouais region by Dendroica
Environnement et Faune (2013 – ongoing).
Project funded by the Interdepartmental Recovery Fund and the Department of
National Defence to conduct surveys of the populations, describe the location of
suitable habitat and propose potential mitigation measures for military activities at
five Department of National Defence establishments (2012-ongoing).
16
2015
Maritimes
•
Habitat Stewardship Program projects on forest birds at risk to assist in the
development of Maritimes-specific beneficial management practices conducted
by Bird Studies Canada (ongoing)
17
6.2
2015
Strategic Direction for Recovery
Table 4. Recovery Planning for the Eastern Whip-poor-will.
Threat or
Limitation
All threats
Broad Strategy
for Recovery
Stewardship and
management of
the species and its
suitable habitat
h
Priority
General Description of Research and Management Approaches
High
– Support habitat conservation using legal measures (where applicable), stewardship
agreements and other regulatory tools on the breeding grounds, along migration
routes and on the wintering grounds
– Support Beneficial Management Practices (BMP) development and implementation
at the local and landscape levels to increase population size as well as the areas of
occupied habitat
– BMPs should prioritize the importance of maintaining/creating insect
producing habitats
– Integrate BMPs for Eastern Whip-poor-will with BMPs for other wildlife within an
heterogeneous and dynamic mosaic
– Use management techniques over large land units and/or within an ecosystem
approach
– Restore habitats in some highly modified landscapes to promote the recolonisation
of portions of the global distribution range
18
Threat or
Limitation
Knowledge gaps
Broad Strategy
for Recovery
Monitoring and
Research
h
Priority
High
Low
All threats
All threats
Education and
Partnerships
Law and Policy
2015
– Develop and implement standardized research and monitoring protocols to gather
information on the species’ ecology, populations and trends, habitat characteristics
and insect prey populations, including:
– Determine habitat attributes (e.g., amount, spatial scale, composition and
configuration), insect prey densities/composition and other variables that
influence the selection and quality of nesting and foraging habitat
– Links between insect prey populations (including trends), bird diets in habitats
of various qualities and reasons for decline
– Links between insect populations and migration phenology, especially in the
context of climate change
– Electronic acoustic monitoring in less accessible parts of the range
(e.g., southern portion of the Canadian Shield)
– Dispersal distances and migratory paths
– Determine if important migratory stopover sites exist for this species and
proceed with their description (see Mehlman et al. 2005)
– Clarify impacts of threats on the wintering areas and along migratory routes
– Develop, validate or improve habitat models (e.g., Boreal Avian Modelling
Initiative; Broeckaert 2012; Broeckaert and Bédard 2012)
– Survey historical occurrences at regular intervals (e.g., 10 years)
Medium
– Promote national and international cooperation and coordination of local and
landscape-level planning (e.g. Bird Conservation Regions and Conservation
i
Strategies ) to mitigate threats on the breeding, migrating and overwintering ranges
– Examine the necessity for a working group for the species or for nocturnal aerial
insectivores
– Establish partnerships with governmental departments and agencies, groups
interested in the species, private owners and the general public for a
local/regional/territorial implementation of the recovery strategy
High
– Promote the compliance with existing environmental laws, regulations and policies,
namely the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and associated regulations to
prevent disturbance to adults, nests and eggs for all types of activities and land
j
tenure
19
Threat or
Limitation
Broad Strategy
for Recovery
h
2015
Priority
Medium
– Encourage the implementation of existing policies and reduction programs for
pesticides, light pollution, greenhouse gasses, and other pollutants and develop new
policies and programs where gaps exist
h
“Priority” reflects the degree to which the approach contributes directly to the recovery of the species or is an essential precursor to an approach that
contributes to the recovery of the species.
i
Environment Canada’s website on Bird Conservation Regions and Conservation Strategies
https://www.ec.gc.ca/mbc-com/default.asp?lang=En&n=1D15657A-1
j
Environment Canada’s website on the incidental take of migratory birds : http://www.ec.gc.ca/paom-itmb/default.asp?lang=En&n=C51C415F-1
20
6.3
2015
Narrative to Support the Recovery Planning Table
Stewardship and Management of the Species and its Suitable Habitat
Preserving and enhancing Eastern Whip-poor-will nesting and foraging habitats will
require promotion of approaches on a broad scale. These habitats must be managed
and protected to ensure species survival, particularly in areas where large portions of
habitat have been lost or degraded or are facing increased development pressures.
The key actions that can be promoted include beneficial management practices in forest
management and agricultural activities as well as habitat restoration to increase habitat
supply, where needed. Beneficial management practices for the Eastern Whip-poor-will
must be integrated with those for other bird species to maintain heterogeneous
landscapes that are a dynamic mosaic of habitat conditions which will benefit several
species. Whenever possible, a multi-species or ecosystem approach to recovery should
be considered. Beneficial management practices for governments, industry, and even
individuals can play an important role for the ongoing efforts to promote recovery of the
Eastern Whip-poor-will. However, it must be kept in mind that such approches will fail to
recover the species unless migration and wintering habitats are also maintained and
threats are addressed.
Monitoring and Research
A comprehensive approach to research and monitoring (that includes all stages of the
annual life cycle and the entire range of occupancy) will be required to more completely
understand the status of the species, as well as its threats and limiting factors on the
breeding, migration and wintering grounds. Currently, adequate monitoring of the
species is limited and concentrated close to urban centres. Targeted research and
monitoring efforts are required throughout the Eastern Whip-poor-will’s range in order to
determine key demographic parameters (e.g., survival, dispersal, reproductive success
in different habitat types) and identify migratory routes, stopover sites, and migratory
connectivity that provide insight into the species needs at multiple scales. Trends in
habitats and prey populations must be better understood (and monitored) to know
whether maintaining, enhancing, and/or restoring insect producing habitats would
significantly benefit Eastern Whip-poor-will populations.
Because the broad-scale monitoring of the Eastern Whip-poor-will is complicated by the
large range of the species and its nocturnal habits, using alternative survey approaches
(e.g., electronic acoustic monitoring) should be explored and citizen-based databases
such as eBird should be considered. There are fewer monitoring programs established
on the wintering grounds, but these are essential. They need to be developed and
implemented to provide better information on habitat use, local habitat and population
trends. Associated with these efforts, there is a need to build and validate
corresponding habitat models at national and regional scales to better understand
where on the landscape the species would be expected to breed, and assist with efforts
to protect important and critical habitat.
21
2015
Education and Partnerships
Collaboration with national and international jurisdictions (all levels of government),
aboriginal peoples, industries, non-governmental organizations and landowners to
preserve, restore, and enhance breeding, migration and wintering habitats is an
important component of this recovery strategy. This could take the form of a working
group such as those that have been put together for the Golden-winged Warbler
(Vermivora chrysoptera) and the Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis) or could target
a larger group of species such as nocturnal aerial insectivores. Indeed, to be effective,
research, conservation, and stewardship approaches must be applied throughout the
species’ range.
Promoting volunteer participation and collaborations in monitoring programs will also be
a key element. Volunteers whose efforts should be promoted include local bird clubs
who have knowledge of areas with high breeding densities and citizen scientists
participating in bird atlases, breeding bird survey programs and citizen-based data
collection (e.g., eBird).
Law and Policy
Throughout the species range, promoting the compliance with existing regulations and
policies should be a priority. Currently, there are multiple legal means available to
protect Eastern Whip-poor-wills and their habitats in Canada (e.g., Endangered Species
Acts). It is important that these tools are fully realized and utilized for the protection of
the species.
General prohibitions under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and its regulations
also protect Eastern Whip-poor-will adults, young, nests and eggs anywhere they are
found in Canada, regardless of land ownership. During the breeding period, potential
destructive or disruptive activities should be avoided at locations where the species is
likely to be encountered (Environment Canada 2014a).
7.
Critical Habitat
7.1
Identification of the Species’ Critical Habitat
SARA defines critical habitat as “…the habitat that is necessary for the survival or
recovery of a listed wildlife species…”. Section 41(1)(c) of SARA requires that recovery
strategies include an identification of the species’ critical habitat, to the extent possible,
as well as examples of activities that are likely to result in its destruction. This recovery
strategy partially identifies critical habitat, based on the best available information for the
Eastern Whip-poor-will as of September 2014. The Schedule of Studies (section 7.2)
outlines the activities required for completing the identification of the critical habitat
necessary to meet the population and distribution objectives. As additional information
becomes available, more precise boundaries may be mapped and further critical habitat
may be identified.
22
2015
The identification of critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will is based on two
criteria: habitat occupancy and habitat suitability.
7.1.1 Habitat Occupancy
This criterion is intended to identify, with a reasonable degree of certainty, the areas of
nesting and foraging habitats used by the species. In an analysis of a large number of
studies of North American and European birds, Bock and Jones (2004) found that
habitat occupancy was frequently an appropriate indicator of habitat suitability.
Habitat occupancy is based on documented nest locations, standardized survey data,
as well as incidental observations. Confirmed breeding records6,7 constitute the highest
indication of habitat occupancy. However, as the Eastern Whip-poor-will is a nocturnal
species, breeding confirmation is rare. Accordingly, a more precautionary approach to
establishing occupancy is warranted and considers combinations of records with lower
nesting probabilities (probable or possible breeding birds).
Because Breeding Bird Atlases are the main sources of Eastern Whip-poor-will data
across Canada, the earliest fieldwork year among the second editions of atlas projects
(2001 in Ontario) was determined as the starting year to establish occupancy using all
available data sources (species-specific surveys, BBS, Conservation Data Centres and
check-lists such as eBird that compile records that do not originate from standardized
programs). All confirmed breeding records were selected. For other types of records, a
multiple occupancy criterion, useful to increase confidence that individuals use the
habitats in which they were detected, was established at a scale relevant to Eastern
Whip-poor-will populations. This was determined to be the 10 x 10 km atlas square
because this is consistent with available data (e.g., breeding bird atlas projects, land
cover datasets and standardized national grid systems) but also because it is a
representative scale to capture the species’ needs. It is at this scale that disturbance
regimes (both natural and anthropogenic) operate to provide the supply of nesting and
foraging habitats necessary to support self-sustaining populations. Consequently, the
habitat occupancy criteria for the Eastern Whip-poor-will are met within an atlas square
when records from the 2001 breeding season (21st May - 15th August) or thereafter
consist of at least :
• One record of confirmed breeding;
OR
• Two records during a single year or from distinct years, where at minimum one
record consists of probable breeding;
OR
• Two possible breeding records during a single year in combination with at least
one possible breeding record from any other year;
OR
• Five possible breeding records during a single year or from different years.
6
Standard breeding evidence definitions used in Canadian breeding bird atlases can be found at
www.bsc-eoc.org/norac/atlascodes.htm
7
Searching for confirmed breeding activity by this species would not be advisable as it would likely result
in inadvertent destruction or disturbance of the nest and eggs.
23
2015
The data used to identify the critical habitat in the present recovery strategy are from
2001 to 2014, inclusively depending on the data available within each region. Since
many habitat types occupied by the Eastern Whip-poor-will are dynamic (e.g., a clear
cut forest can become too dense for nesting or foraging within 10-15 years under
optimal conditions), records older than 2001 will need to be validated to determine if
suitable nesting and foraging habitats are still available and if the species still occupies
the area.
7.1.2 Habitat Suitability
This criterion refers to the biophysical attributes of habitats in which individuals may
carry out breeding (e.g., courtship, territory defense, nesting) and foraging activities in
Canada (Table 5). Breeding and foraging habitats form a mosaic. Depending on the
habitat attributes available locally, nesting and foraging habitats overlap to various
degrees (e.g., individuals forage in wetlands with sufficient perches but do not nest in
them, whereas individuals may nest and forage in young regenerating forests). The
criteria to determine the extent of suitable habitat vary accordingly. The United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (2002) developed a habitat model for the Eastern
Whip-poor-will in the northeastern United States. It suggests that when forests with a
dense tree cover are used for nesting purposes, only the first 30 m from the edge needs
to be included as the species is not associated to the forest interior. On the other side of
the spectrum, when habitats can only be used for foraging purposes because the
vegetation structure or other characteristics (e.g., drainage) are unsuitable for nesting,
data from Rand’s (2014) study suggest that it is sufficient to incorporate the habitat up
to 1,250 m of the edge with nesting habitats, i.e. the maximum movement observed.
24
2015
Table 5. Description of the Biophysical Attributes of Suitable Habitats for the
Eastern Whip-poor-will.
Components of
habitat suitability
Regional context
Biophysical Attributes
Forests (e.g., deciduous, mixedwood, coniferous, treed wetlands) and open
habitats (e.g., shrublands, fallow fields, regeneration following fires or
clear-cuts, rock and sand outcrops; shrubby wetlands) form a mosaic
k
Habitats suitable for
both nesting and
foraging
– Forests with sparse to moderate tree cover or open habitats
AND
– Sparse to moderate shrub and herbaceous cover
AND
– Well-drained soils (e.g., sand, sandy-loam)
l
 Within an atlas square, includes all corresponding areas of 3 ha or
more
nesting only
[must be adjacent
to foraging habitats]
– Forests with a dense tree cover
AND
– Sparse to moderate shrub and herbaceous cover
AND
– Well-drained soils (e.g., sand, sandy-loam)
 Within an atlas square, includes all corresponding areas up to 30 m
on the interior side of the forest edge
– Forests with sparse tree cover or open habitats
AND
– Dense shrub cover
AND
– Soil drainage is deficient
foraging only
[must be adjacent to
nesting habitats]
 Within an atlas square, includes all corresponding areas up to
1,250 m from the edge with suitable nesting habitat
OR
– Agricultural land with scattered shrubs or trees (e.g., hedgerows) that can
be used as perches
 Within an atlas square, includes all corresponding areas up to
1,250 m from the edge with suitable nesting habitat
k
l
Sparse : <25% ; Moderate : 25-75% ; Dense : > 75%
Minimum territory size for the Eastern Whip-poor-will (Cink 2002).
7.1.3 Application of the Critical Habitat Criteria
Critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will is partially identified in this recovery
strategy. It corresponds to the areas of suitable nesting and/or foraging habitats within
all 10 x 10 km atlas squares meeting the occupancy criteria. Each of these 10 x 10 km
25
2015
atlas squares is a critical habitat unit. Due to the dynamic nature of some of the habitat
components required by the species, no detailed critical habitat mapping is provided. It
is also unknown, at this time, to what degree the objective of maintaining the area of
occupancy above 3000 km2 is met. The identification of critical habitat is considered
partial due to limited survey data availability in certain areas of the Eastern Whip-poorwill’s distribution and knowledge gaps related to the importance of landscape-level
habitat attributes.
Appendix A (Tables A-1 to A-4 and Figures A-1 to A-4) presents the units within which
critical habitat is found for the Eastern Whip-poor-will in Canada. Because they both
originate from breeding bird atlas squares, critical habitat units for this species are the
same as the 10 x 10 km standardized UTM squares used by Environment Canada to
indicate the general geographic location of critical habitat (red hatched outlines in
figures in Appendix A). Overall, 212 critical habitat units are identified for the Eastern
Whip-poor-will, including 32 in Manitoba, 110 in Ontario, 65 in Quebec, and five in the
Maritimes (all in New Brunswick). More detailed information on the location of critical
habitat to support protection of the species and its habitat may be requested, on a
need-to-know basis, by contacting Environment Canada’s Recovery Planning section at
: [email protected].
Any anthropogenic structure (e.g., houses, paved surfaces) and any other areas that do
not have the biophysical attributes of suitable habitat are not identified as critical habitat.
7.2
Schedule of Studies to Identify Critical Habitat
Table 6. Schedule of Studies to Identify Critical Habitat
Description of Activity
Rationale
Timeline
Determine habitat characteristics (e.g., spatial scale,
configuration) that influence the selection and quality
of nesting and foraging habitat for the Eastern Whippoor-will in Canada
Clarify critical habitat
identification criteria and add a
landscape component if needed
2015-2020
Conduct standardized nocturnal breeding surveys
where:
- Records since 2001 partially meet the
occupancy criteria;
- Records date before 2001 and continued
occupancy needs to be verified
- Insufficient or no surveys have been
conducted (e.g., less accessible areas)
Additional critical habitat
identified to meet the short term
population and distribution
objectives
2015-2025
Identify areas in the southern portion of the breeding
distribution in Canada where the species could
recolonize habitats following their restoration or
management
Additional critical habitat
identified to meet the long term
population and distribution
objectives
2015-2035
26
7.3
2015
Activities Likely to Result in the Destruction of Critical Habitat
Understanding what constitutes destruction of critical habitat is necessary for the
protection and management of critical habitat. Destruction is determined on a case by
case basis. Destruction would result if part of the critical habitat were degraded, either
permanently or temporarily, such that it would not serve its function when needed by the
species. Destruction may result from a single or multiple activities at one point in time or
from the cumulative effects of one or more activities over time (Government of Canada
2009). Activities described in Table 7 are examples of those likely to cause destruction
of critical habitat for the species; however, destructive activities are not necessarily
limited to those listed. It should be noted that some activities that would result in the
destruction of critical habitat if conducted during the breeding season could also
generate the open habitats necessary for foraging as well as nesting habitats in the
following years (dynamic habitat mosaic).
27
2014
Table 7. Examples of Activities Likely to Destroy Critical Habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will.
Description of Activity
Intensification of agricultural
practices (e.g., conversion of
extensive cultures to more intensive
crops)
Description of Effect
Loss or degradation of suitable foraging habitats; Removal
of conditions that allow for sufficient prey populations;
Fragmentation of habitat; Reduced insect prey populations
through the use of pesticides or herbicides on the crops and
adjacent habitats
Conversion of forests to agricultural
lands
Energy development and mineral
extraction (e.g., pipelines, energy
corridors, resource extraction, dams)
Loss or degradation of suitable habitats for nesting and/or
foraging; Removal of conditions that allow for sufficient prey
populations; Fragmentation of habitat
Construction of housing units and
other urban infrastructures
(e.g., commercial and industrial
buildings, playgrounds, roads)
Forest management (e.g., clearing of
shrubs to install tubes in a
sugarbush; maintenance in
plantations)
Maintenance of linear infrastructures
(e.g., utility rights-of-way, energy
corridors) or other types of non-linear
infrastructures (e.g., military ranges
and fields used for military training)
m
Degradation of suitable nesting habitats in dense forests
through impacts on the shrub and herbaceous layers
required for the nest site and for roosting
Degradation of suitable nesting habitats through the
reduction/elimination of the shrub and herbaceous layers
required for nest site placement and loss of perches
needed for roosting and foraging; Reduced insect prey
populations through the use of herbicides (less insect
producing habitats)
Details of Effect
Applicable at all times in critical
habitat units (10 x 10 km squares)
where the forest cover is already low
(e.g., <25%) and if the effect is
permanent;
Applicable at all times in critical
habitat units if activity would result in
forest cover falling below 25% and if
the effect is permanent;
Applicable at all times if biophysical
attributes would become unavailable
or available in insufficient amounts at
the time they are needed by the
species.
These activities, if conducted outside
m
of the breeding season , may not be
considered as habitat destruction.
When possible, these activities could
be conducted in successive steps to
maintain partial shrub cover.
Eastern Whip-poor-will general nesting period in Canada extends from mid-May to mid-August (Rousseu and Drolet, unpublished data).
28
2015
The 25% forest cover (i.e. 2,500 ha) figure within each 10 x 10 km atlas square within
which Eastern Whip-poor-will records occur was selected as a value under which
activities, if they were to occur, are more likely to result in the abandonment of the
remaining suitable habitats. The following considerations were taken into account :
•
•
•
•
•
The Eastern Whip-poor-will is generally considered a bird of forested landscapes;
Each individual may require nesting and foraging resources within home ranges
as large as 500 ha (Rand 2014). Many of the atlas squares meeting the
occupancy criteria had 3 or more individuals;
Individuals often occupy transitional habitats (e.g., a partial cut forest can
become too dense for nesting or foraging within 10-15 years under optimal
conditions) making it necessary to maintain alternate nesting and foraging sites
over areas larger than those occupied in any given year. This consideration is
particularly important in atlas squares where forest cover is already under 25%
and alternate breeding habitats may no longer be available ;
Regions with higher forest cover are more likely to sustain Eastern Whip-poor-will
populations over the long term (more suitable habitats, reduced impact of some
threats);
An analysis shows that 10 x 10 km atlas squares meeting the occupancy
criteria described in section 7.1.1 have a mean forest cover of 56% in Ontario
(range = 41-98%); 42% in Quebec (range = 8-78%) and 74% in the Maritimes
(range = 62-91%). This implies that there is a lot of flexibility to maintain habitat
supply above 25% within most 10 x 10 km squares within which critical habitat is
found.
The 25% forest cover figure should be viewed as a general indication of the level of
additional activities that could take place within each 10 x 10 km square rather than a
true threshold. Other considerations, including the configuration of remaining forest
habitats and the level of fragmentation are also key elements. Some site-level
biophysical attributes (e.g., well-drained soils such as sand deposits) may also be
available in limited amounts.
8.
Measuring Progress
The performance indicators presented below provide a way to define and measure
progress toward achieving the population and distribution objectives.
-
-
In the short term (2015-2025), declining population trends have been halted or
reversed to a point where the Canadian population of the Eastern Whip-poor-will
have declined no more than 10% and the areas of occupied habitats are
maintained at 3000 km2 or more.
In the long term (after 2025), a positive 10-year trend, measured by BBS and
other available data (e.g., targeted surveys), is achieved (i.e., the population is
increasing) and the species has started gradually recolonizing former areas in
the southern portion of the Canadian range.
29
9.
2015
Statement on Action Plans
One or more action plans for the Eastern Whip-poor-will will be posted on the Species
at risk public registry before the end of 2020.
10. References
Aide, T. M., Clark, M. L., Grau, H. R., López-Carr, D., Levy, M. A., Redo, D.,
Bonilla-Moheno, M., Riner, G., Andrade-Núñez, M. J. and Muñiz, M. 2013.
Deforestation and reforestation of latin America and the Caribbean (2001–2010).
Biotropica 45: 262–271.
Allombert, S., S. Stockton, and J.-L. Martin. 2005. A natural experiment on the impact of
overabundant deer on forest invertebrates. Conservation Biology 19(6):1917-1929.
Anodon, J.D., O. E. Sala and F.T. Maestre. 2014. Climate change will increase
savannas at the expense of forests and treeless vegetation in tropical and subtropical
Americas. Journal of Ecology (102) : 1363-1373.
Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec. 2014. Données obtenues de la part des
bureaux de l'Atlas des oiseaux nicheurs du Québec. Regroupement QuébecOiseaux,
Service canadien de la faune d'Environnement Canada et Études d'Oiseaux Canada.
Québec, Québec, Canada. Online : www.atlas-oiseaux.qc.ca
Bélanger, L., M. Grenier and S. Deslandes, 1999. Bilan des habitats et de l'occupation
du sol dans la vallée du Saint-Laurent. Environnement Canada, Service canadien de la
faune, Région du Québec.
Benton, T. G., D. M. Bryant, L. Cole and H. Q. P. Crick. 2002. Linking agricultural
practice to insect and bird populations: a historical study over three decades. Journal of
Applied Ecology 39: 673-687.
Blancher, P., M. D. Cadman, B. A. Pond, A. R. Couturier, E. H. Dunn, C. M. Francis and
R. S. Rempel. 2007. Changes in bird distributions between atlases. In M. D. Cadman,
D. A. Sutherland, G. G. Beck, D. Lepage and A. R. Couturier (eds.). Atlas of the
breeding birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Pp. 32-48. Bird Studies Canada, Environment
Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and
Ontario Nature, Toronto (Ontario).
Blancher, P.J., R.D. Phoenix, D.S. Badzinski, M.D. Cadman, T.L. Crewe, C.M. Downes,
D. Fillman, C.M. Francis, J. Hughes, D.J.T. Hussell, D. Lepage, J.D. McCracken,
D.K. McNicol, B.A. Pond, R.K. Ross, R. Russell, L.A. Venier and R.C. Weeber. 2009.
Population trend status of Ontario’s forest birds. The Forestry Chronicle 85(2):184-201.
30
2015
Bock, C.E. and Z.F. Jones. 2004. Avian habitat evaluation: should counting birds count?
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2: 403–410.
Boettner, G. H., J.S. Elkinton and C. J. Boettner. 2000. Effects of a biological control
introduction on three nontarget native species of nonnative Saturniid moths.
Conservation Biology 14(6): 1798-1806.
Both, C., C. A. Van Turnhout, R. G. Bijlsma, H. Siepel, A. J. Van Strien and
R. P. Foppen. 2009. Avian population consequences of climate change are most severe
for long-distance migrants in seasonal habitats. Proceedings of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 277: 1259-1266.
Both, C., S. Bouwhuis, C. Lessells and M.E. Visser. 2006. Climate change and
population declines in a long-distance migratory bird. Nature 441(7089): 81-83.
Broeckart, M. and S. Bédard. 2012. Rapport sur la validation du modèle de l’habitat des
engoulevents au Québec, la précision de l’habitat convenable pour l’Engoulevent
bois-pourri et la détermination de routes d’inventaires permanentes. Regroupement
QuébecOiseaux. 9 p.
Broeckaert, M. 2012. Réalisation cartographique de la potentialité de l’habitat de
l’Engoulevent bois-pourri au Québec. Regroupement QuébecOiseaux. 115 pp.
Brooks, D. R., J. E. Bater, S. J. Clark, D. T. Monteith, C. Andrews, S. J. Corbett,
D. A. Beaumont and J. W. Chapman. 2012. Large carabid beetle declines in a
United Kingdom monitoring network increases evidence for a widespread loss in
insect biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 49(5): 1009-1019.
Brown, C. R. and M. B. Brown. 2000. Weather-mediated natural selection on arrival
time in Cliff Swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
47(5): 339-345.
Bushman, E.S. and G.D. Therres. 1988. Habitat management guidelines for forest
interior breeding birds of coastal Maryland. Maryland Deptartment of Natural
Resources. Wildlife Technical Publication 88-1. 50 p.
Cadman, M. D., D.A. Sutherland, G. G. Beck, D. LePage and A.R. Couturier, eds. 2007.
Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment
Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and
Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 p.
Cadman, M. D., Sutherland, D. A. and F. M. Helleiner (eds). 1987. Atlas of the Breeding
Birds of Ontario. University of Waterloo Press. Waterloo, Ontario. 617 p.
Chesser, R. T., Banks, R.C., Barker, F. K., Cicero, C., Dunn, J. L., Kratter, A. W.,
Lovette, I. J., Rasmussen, P. C., Remsen, J. V., Jr, Rising, J. D., Stotz, D. F. and
31
2015
K. Winker. 2010. Fifty-first supplement to the American ornithologists’ Union Check-list
of North American Birds. The Auk. 127(3):726-744.
Chesser, R. T., R.C. Banks, F. K. Barker, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter,
I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, J. D. Jr Rising, D. F. Stotz, and K.
Winker. 2012. Fifty-third supplement to the American ornithologists’ Union Check-list of
North American Birds. The Auk. 129(3):573-588.
Chiron, F., R. Chargé, R. Julliard, F. Jiguet and A. Muratet. 2014. Pesticide doses,
landscape structure and their relative effects on farmland birds. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 185:153–160.
Cink, C. L. 2002. Eastern Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus), The Birds of North
America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the
Birds of North America. Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/620 (Accessed
September, 2014).
Colburn, T., F.S. Vom Saal and A.M. Soto. 1993. Developmental effects of
endocrine-disrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans. Environmental Health
Perspectives 101: 378-384.
Cooper, R.J. 1981. Relative abundance of Georgia Caprimulgids based on call-counts.
Wilson Bulletin 93: 363-371.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 2007. Eastern Whip-poor-will. Online:
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/eastern_whip-poor-will/lifehistory (Accessed
April, 2013).
COSEWIC. 2009. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Whip-poor-will
Caprimulgus vociferus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada. Ottawa. vi + 28 pp.
Côté, S. D., T. P. Rooney, J.-P. Tremblay, C. Dussault and D. Waller. 2004. Ecological
impacts of deer overabundance. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics 3: 113-147.
Cunningham, H.M, K. Chaney, R.B. Bradbury and A. Wilcox. 2004. Non-inversion
tillage and farmland birds: a review with special reference to the UK and Europe.
Ibis 146(2): 192–202.
Cyr, A. and J. Larivée. 1995. Atlas saisonnier des oiseaux du Québec. Société du Loisir
Ornithologique. 714 p.
DeGraaf, R. M., W. M. Healy and R. T. Brooks. 1991. Effects of thinning and deer
browsing on breeding birds in New England oak woodlands. Forest Ecology and
Management 41:179-191.
32
2015
de Groot, W. J., M. D. Flannigan and A. S. Cantin. 2013. Climate change impacts on
future boreal fire regimes. Forest Ecology and Management 294: 35-44.
Dendroica Environnement et Faune. 2013. Inventaire de huit espèces d’oiseaux en péril
en Outaouais en vue de désigner leur habitat essentiel : 1ere année du suivi. Présenté
au Service canadien de la faune Environnement Canada. 23 p.
Dionne, M., C. Maurice, J. Gauthier and F. Shaffer. 2008. Impact of hurricane Wilma on
migrating birds: The case of the Chimney Swift. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology
120(4): 784-792.
Dirzo, R., H. S. Young, M. Galetti, G. Ceballos, N. J. Isaac and B. Collen. 2014.
Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345(6195): 401-406.
Eastman, J. 1991. Whip-poor-will, pp. 252-253 in Brewer, R., G.A. McPeek and
R.J. Adams Jr., eds. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan. East Lansing,
MI: Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan. 594pp.
eBird Canada. 2014. Bird Observations on eBird website Version 1.0. Audubon and
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Online: http://ebird.org/ebird/canada/ (Accessed
April, 2014).
English, P. and M.A. Conboy. 2013. Developping stewardship prescriptions for
Whip-poor-wills (Antrostomus vociferous) in eastern Ontario: SARSF Final Report.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 14 p.
Environment Canada. 2011. Presence and levels of priority pesticides in selected
Canadian aquatic ecosystems. Environment Canada, Water Science and Technology
Directorate. Gatineau, Québec.
Environment Canada. 2014a. North American Breeding Bird Survey – Canadian Results
and Analysis Website version 3.00. Environment Canada, Gatineau, Quebec. Online :
http://ec.gc.ca/reom-mbs/default.asp?lang=En&n=0D74F35F-1 (Accessed June, 2014).
Environment Canada. 2014b. Avoidance Guidelines related to Incidental Take of
Migratory Birds in Canada. Online: http://www.ec.gc.ca/paom-itmb
Erskine, A.J. 1992. Atlas of Breeding Birds of the Maritime Provinces. Nimbus
Publishing Ltd. The Nova Scotia Museum. 270 p.
Flannigan, M., B. Stocks, M. Turetsky and M. Wotton. 2009. Impacts of climate change
on fire activity and fire management in the circumboreal forest. Global Change Biology
15(3): 549-560.
Foster, G. N. 1991. Conserving insects of aquatic and wetland habitats, with special
reference to beetles. Pages 237-262 In The conservation of insects and their habitats.
33
2015
15th Symposium of the Royal Entomological Society of London. Academic Press.
London, UK.
Gallizioli, S. 1979. Effects of livestock grazing on wildlife. Presented at the 10th Annual
joint Meeting of the western Section, the Wildlife Society and the California-Nevada
Chapter, American Fisheries Society. Online:
http://www.rangebiome.org/cowfree/gallizioli/EffectsOfLivestockGrazing79.htm
(Accessed November, 2014).
Garlapow, R. M. 2007. Whip-poor-will prey availability and foraging habitat: implications
for management in pitch pine / scrub oak barrens habitats. University of
Massachussetts - Amherst. Masters Theses. Paper 27. 58 p.
Gauthier, J. and Y. Aubry (eds). 1996. The breeding birds of Quebec: Atlas of the
breeding birds of southern Quebec. Province of Quebec Society for the Protection of
Birds and Canadian Wildlife Service, Montreal. xviii + 1,302 pp.
Gill, R. 2000. The Impact of deer on woodland biodiversity. Forestry Commission
Information Note 36. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh.
Girardin, M. P., A. A. Ali, C. Carcaillet, O. Blarquez, C. Hély, A. Terrier, A. Genries and
Y. Bergeron. 2013. Vegetation limits the impact of a warm climate on boreal wildfires.
New Phytologist 199(4): 1001-1011.
Godfrey, W.E. 1986. Birds of Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences, Ottawa,
595 pp.
Goetsch, C., J. Wigg, A. A. Royo, T. Ristau, and W. P. Carson. 2011. Chronic over
browsing and biodiversity collapse in a forest understory in Pennsylvania: Results from
a 60 year-old deer exclusion plot. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society
138 (2):220-224.
Goldstein, M. I., T. E. J. Lacher, B. Woodbridge, M. J. Bechard, S. B. Canavelli,
M. E. Saccagnini, G. P. Cobb, E. J. Scollon, R. Tribolet and M. J. Hooper. 1999.
Monocrotophos-induced mass mortality of Swainson’s Hawks in Argentine, 1995-96.
Ecotoxicology 8:201-214.
Gornish, E. S. and J. M. Tylianakis. 2013. Community shifts under climate change:
Mechanisms at multiple scales. American Journal of Botany 100(7):1422-1434.
Goulson, D. 2013. Review: An overview of the environmental risks posed by
neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal of Appllied Ecology 50(4):977-987.
Goulson, D. 2014. Pesticides linked to bird declines. Nature 511: 295-296.
34
2015
Government of Canada. 2009. Species at Risk Act Policies, Overarching framework
[Draft]. Species at Risk Act Policy and Guideline Series. Environment Canada. Ottawa.
38 pp.
Graveland, J. 1998. Effects of acid rain on bird populations. Environmental Review
6:41-54.
Hallmann, C. A., R. P. Foppen, C. A. van Turnhout, H. de Kroon and E. Jongejans.
2014. Declines in insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid
concentrations. Nature 511: 341-343.
Hansen, M., P. Potapov, R. Moore, M. Hancher, S. Turubanova, A. Tyukavina, D. Thau,
S. Stehman, S. Goetz and T. Loveland. 2013. High-resolution global maps of
21st-century forest cover change. Science 342(6160): 850-853.
Hawley, D. M., K. K. Hallinger and D. A. Cristol. 2009. Compromised immune
competence in free-living Tree Swallows exposed to mercury. Ecotoxicology
18(5): 499-503.
Hobson, K. A., A. G. Wilson, S. L. Van Wilgenburg and E. M. Bayne. 2013. An
estimation of nest loss in Canada due to industrial forestry operations. Avian
Conservation and Ecology 8(2):5.
Huber, D. G. and J. Gulledge. 2011. Extreme weather and climate change:
understanding the link, managing the risk. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions,
Arlington, VA.
Hunt, P. D. 2010. Whip-poor-will territory mapping at two New Hampshire sites.
Audubon Society of New Hampshire, Concord, NH, USA. 9 p.
Jobin, B., C. Latendresse, A. Baril, C. Maisonneuve and D. Côté. 2014. A half-century
analysis of landscape dynamics in southern Québec, Canada. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 186: 2215–2229.
Jones, G. A., K. E. Sieving and S. K. Jacobson. 2005. Avian diversity and functional
insectivory on North-Central Florida Farmlands. Proceedings: Conservation Biology
19(4):1234-1245.
Jones, T. and W. Cresswell. 2010. The phenology mismatch hypothesis: are declines of
migrant birds linked to uneven global climate change? Journal of Animal Ecology
79(1): 98-108.
Jorgenson, T. and A. Foster. 2007. Grazing Forested Rangeland. Government of
Saskatchewan. Online: http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=4aabe84eea79-417a-ace2-e629ffe95cb3 (Accessed December, 2013).
35
2015
Keller, R. H., L. Xie, D. B. Buchwalter, K. E. Franzreb and T. R. Simons. 2014. Mercury
bioaccumulation in Southern Appalachian birds, assessed through feather
concentrations. Ecotoxicology 23(2): 304-316.
Klemens, J. A., R. G. Harper, J. A. Frick, A. P. Capparella, H. B. Richardson and
M. J. Coffey. 2000. Pattern of organochlorine pesticide contamination in neotropical
migrant passerines in relation to diet and winter habitat. Chemosphere 41:1107-1113.
Larivée, J. 2013. Étude des populations d'oiseaux du Québec (Version 2013-04-11)
[base de données]. Rimouski, Québec : Regroupement QuébecOiseaux.
Laughlin, S. B. and D. P. Kibbe. 1985. The atlas of breeding birds of Vermont.
University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.
Leonard, H. J. 1987. Natural resources and economic development in Central America:
a regional environmental profile. For the International Institute for Environment and
Development.
Lewis, T. and G. C. Dibley. 1970. Air movement near windbreaks and a hypothesis of
the mechanism of the accumulation of airborne insects. Annals of Applies Biology
66:477-484.
Lewis, T. and J. W. Stephenson. 1966. The permeability of artificial windbreaks and the
distribution of flying insects in the leeward sheltered zone. Annals of Applied Biology
58:355-363.
Longcore, T. and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 2(4):191-198.
Machtans, C. S., C. H. Wedeles et E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the
number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and
Ecology 8(2): 6.
Main, A. R., J. V. Headley, K. M. Peru, N. L. Michel, A. J. Cessna and C. A. Morrissey.
2014. Widespread use and frequent detection of neonicotinoid insecticides in wetlands
of Canada's prairie pothole region. PLoS one 9(3): e92821.
Maritime Breeding Bird Atlas. 2013. Bird Studies Canada and Environment Canada –
CWS – Atlantic region. Online: http://www.mba-aom.ca/
Masek, J. G., W. B. Cohen, D. Leckie, M. A. Wulder, R. Vargas, B. de Jong, S. Healey,
B. Law, R. Birdsey and R. Houghton. 2011. Recent rates of forest harvest and
conversion in North America. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences (2005–
2012) 116(G4).
36
2015
Medler, M. D. 2008. Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus. Pages 310-311 dans
McGowan, K. J. and K. Corwin (eds). The second atlas of breeding birds in New York
State. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York. 687 p.
Mehlman, D.W., S.E. Mabey, D.N. Ewert, C. Duncan, B. Abel, D. Cimprich, R.D. Sutter,
and M. Woodrey. 2005. Conserving stopover sites for forest-dwelling migratory
landbirds. Auk 122(4):1281-1290.
Mills, A. M. 1986. The influence of moonlight on the behaviour of goatsuckers
(Caprimulgidea). The Auk 103(2):370-378.
Mills, A. M. 2007. Whip-poor-will, pp. 312-313 in Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland,
G.G. Beck, D. LePage and A.R. Couturier, eds. Atlas of the breeding birds of Ontario,
2001-2005. Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada, Ontario Field Ornithologists,
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706 pp.
Mineau, P. and C. Palmer. 2013. The impact of the nation's most widely used
insecticides on birds: neonicotinoid insecticides and birds. American Bird Conservancy,
Washington, DC.
Møller, A. P., D. Rubolini and E. Lehikoinen. 2008. Populations of migratory bird species
that did not show a phenological response to climate change are declining. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences 105(42): 16195-16200.
NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web
application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Online:
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer (Accessed March, 2014).
Nebel, S., A. Mills, J. D. McCracken and P. D. Taylor. 2010. Declines of aerial
insectivores in North America follow a geographic gradient. Avian Conservation and
Ecology – Écologie et conservation des oiseaux 5(2): 1.
NFD. 2014. National Forestry Database. Natural Resources Canada and Canadian
Forest Service, Ottawa, ON. Online: http://nfdp.ccfm.org/index_e.php. (Accessed
August 20, 2014).
Nocera, J. J., J. M. Blais, D. V. Beresford, L. K. Finity, C. Grooms, L. E. Kimpe,
K. Kyser, N. Michelutti, M. W. Reudink and J. P. Smol. 2012. Historical pesticide
applications coincided with an altered diet of aerially foraging insectivorous chimney
swifts. Proceedings: Biological Sciences 279(1740):3114-3120.
North American Bird Conservation Initiative US Committee. 2010. The State of the
Birds 2010 - Report on Climate Change, United States of America. US Department of
the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2009. Whip-poor-will (Caprimulgus vociferus).
Queen’s Printer for Ontario. 2 p.
37
2015
Osborne, C. E, D. C. Evers, M. Duron, N. Schoch, D. Yates, D. Buck, O. P. Lane, and
J. Franklin. 2011. Mercury Contamination within Terrestrial Ecosystems
in New England and Mid-Atlantic States: Profiles of Soil, Invertebrates, Songbirds, and
Bats. Report BRI 2011-09. Submitted to The Nature Conservancy – Eastern New York
Chapter. Biodiversity Research Institute, Gorham, Maine. 100 p.
Palmer-Ball, B.L. Jr. 1996. The Kentucky breeding bird atlas. Univ. Press of Kentucky,
Lexington.
Paquette, S.R., F. Pelletier, D. Garant and M. Bélisle. 2014. Severe recent decrease of
adult body mass in a declining insectivorous bird population. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B 281: 9 p.
Parish, T., K.H. Lakhani, and T.H. Sparks. 1995. Modelling the relationship between
bird population variables and hedgerow, and other field margin attributes. II. Abundance
of individual species and of groups of similar species. Journal of Applied ecology
32(2):362-371.
Partners in Flight Science Committee. 2013. Population Estimates Database. Online:
http://rmbo.org/pifpopestimates (Accessed October, 2013).
Patric, J. H. and J. D. Helvey. 1986. Some effects of grazing on soil and water in the
Eastern forest. United States Department of Agriculture, Northeastern Forest
Experiment Station. Broomall, Pennsylvania. 11 p.
Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1983. Breeding birds of Ontario, nidiology and distribution,
Vol. 1: nonpasserines. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, 321 pp.
Peterson, W. R. and W. R. Meservey. 2003. Massachusetts breeding bird atlas.
Massachusetts Audubon Society, Lincoln, Massachusetts, USA.
Pollard, E. and A.S. Cooke. 1994. Impact of muntjac deer Muntiacus reevesi on
egg-laying sites of the white admiral butterfly Ladoga camilla in a cambridgeshire wood.
Biological Conservation 70(2):189-191.
Price, P. W., R. F. Denno, M. D. Eubanks, D. L. Finke and I. Kaplan. 2011. Insect
ecology: behavior, populations and communities. Cambridge University Press.
New York, NY. 812 pp.
Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer. and S. I. Stewart. 2005. Rural and sub-urban sprawl in
the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation.
Conservation Biology 19:793-805.
38
2015
Ramankutty, N., E. Heller and J. Rhemtulla. 2010. Prevailing myths about agricultural
abandonment and forest regrowth in the United States. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
100:502-512.
Rand, G.J. 2014. Home range use, habitat selection, and stress physiology of Eastern
Whip-poor-wills (Antrostomus vociferus) at the northern edge of their range.
Msc. Thesis, Trent University. Peterborough, Ontario. 66 pp.
Reese, J.G. 1996. Whip-poor-will, pp. 194-195 in C.S. Robbins, ed. Atlas of the
Breeding Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Univ. of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Robbins, C.S. 1994. Whip-poor-will. In C.R. Foss (ed.) Atlas of breeding birds in
New Hampshire. Audubon Society of New Hampshire, Concord, New Hamphire. 414 p.
Robinson, L., J. P. Newell and J. M. Marzluff. 2005. Twenty-five years of sprawl in the
Seattle region: Grown management responses and implications for conservation.
Landscape and Urban Planning 71:51-72.
Robinson, R. A. and W. J. Sutherland. 2002. Post-war changes in arable farming and
biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 39:157-176.
Rooney, T. P. 2009. High white-tailed deer densities benefit graminoids and contribute
to biotic homogenization of forest groud-layer vegetation. Plan ecology, 202(1):103-111.
Rousseu, F. and B. Drolet. Unpublished data. The nesting phenology of birds in
Canada. Techical Report Series. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada.
Roy, L. and M. Bombardier. 1996. Whip-poor-will. Pages 626-629 in Gauthier, J. and
Y. Aubry (eds). The breeding birds of Quebec: Atlas of the breeding birds of Southern
Quebec. Province of Quebec Society for the Protection of Birds and Canadian Wildlife
Service, Montreal. xviii + 1,302 p.
Russell, F.L., D.B. Zippin and/ N.L. Fowler. 2001. Effects of white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) on plants, plant populations and communities: a review.
American Midl/ Naturalist 146:1-26.
Sager, T. A. 1997. Organochlorine pesticide contamination in new world passerines.
Honors Project, Paper 10. Illinois Wesleyan University.
Saino, N., R. Ambrosini, D. Rubolini, J. von Hardenberg, A. Provenzale, K. Hüppop,
O. Hüppop, A. Lehikoinen, E. Lehikoinen and K. Rainio. 2011. Climate warming,
ecological mismatch at arrival and population decline in migratory birds. Proceedings of
the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278(1707): 835-842.
39
2015
Sandilands, A. P. 2010. Birds of Ontario: habitat requirements, limiting factors and
status. Vol. II, Nonpasserines: Shorebirds through Woodpeckers. University of
British Columbia Press. 387 pp.
Santner, S.1992. Whip-poor-will. Pages 172-173. In Atlas of breeding birds in
Pennsylvania. Braunong, D. W., (Ed.) University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Sauer, J. R., G. W. Pendleton and B. G. Peterjohn. 1996. Evaluating causes of
population change in North American insectivorous songbirds. Conservation Biology
10(2):465-478.
Scheuhammer, A. M., M. W. Meyer, M. B. Sandheinrich and M. W. Murray. 2007.
Effects of environmental methylmercury on the health of wild birds, mammals, and fish.
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36(1): 12-19.
Smith, A.R. 1996. Atlas of Saskatchewan birds. Canadian Wildlife Service, Natural
History Society, Regina, 456 pp.
Strode, P. K. 2003. Implications of climate change for North American wood warblers
(Parulidae). Global Change Biology 9(8): 1137-1144.
Sun, H., W. Forsythe and/ N. Waters. 2007. Modeling urban land use change and urban
sprawl: Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Networks and Spatial Economics 7:353-376.
Taper, M. L., K. Böhning-Gaese and J. H. Brown. 1995. Individualistic responses of bird
species to environmental change. Oecologia 101(4):478-486.
Tozer, D.C., J.C. Hoare, J.E. Inglis, J. Yaraskavitch, H. Kitching and S. Dobbyn. 2014.
Clearcut with seed trees in red pine forests associated with increased occupancy by
Eastern Whip-poor-wills. Forest Ecology and Management 330: 1-7.
Turpak, J.M., D.T. Jones-Farrand, F.R. Thompson III, D.J. Twedt and W.B. Uihlein III.
2009. Multiscale habitat suitability index models for priority landbirds in the Central
Hardwoods and West Gulf Coastal Plain/Ouachitas Bird Conservation regions.
United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. General Technical
Report NRS-49. Online: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/mwginternal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=vDvypziygX
Tyler, W. M. 1940. Eastern Whip-poor-will. Pages 163-183 in Life histories of North
American cuckoos, goatsuckers, hummingbirds and their allies. (Bent, A. C., Ed.)
U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 176p.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 1978. Grass creek: oil and gas leasing
environmental assessment record. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Worland District,
WY.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Whip-poor-will habitat model.
40
2015
http://www.fws.gov/r5gomp/gom/habitatstudy/metadata2/whip-poor-will_model.htm
Van Wilgenburg, S.L., K.A. Hobson, E.M. Bayne and N. Koper. 2013. Estimated avian
nest loss associated with oil and gas exploration and extraction in the Western
Canadian Sedimentary Basin. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 9.
Verboom, B. and K. Spoelstra. 1999. Effects of food abundance and wind on the use of
tree lines by an insectivorous bat, Pipistrellus pipistrellus. Canadian Journal of Zoology,
77:1393-1401.
Visser, M.E., L. J. M. Holleman and P. Gienapp. 2006. Shifts in caterpillar biomass
phenology due to climate change and its impact on the breeding biology of an
insectivorous bird. Oecologia. 147(1):164-172.
Wagner, D. L. 2012. Moth decline in the Northeastern United States. News of the
Lepidopterists’ Society 54(2): 52-56.
Wickramasinghe, L. P., S. Harris, G. Jjones and N. V. Jennings. 2004. Abundance and
species richness of nocturnal insects on organic and conventional farms: effects of
agricultural intensification on bat foraging. Conservation Biology 18 (5):1283-1292.
Wilson, M.D. 2003. Distribution, abundance, and home range of the Whip-poor-will
(Caprimulgus vociferus) in a managed forest landscape. MS. Thesis. College of
William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
Wilson, M.D. and B.D. Watts. 2008. Landscape configuration effects on distribution and
abundance of Whip-poor-wills. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120(4):778-783.
Wilson, S.G. 1985. Summer distribution of Whip-poor-wills in Minnesota. Loon 57:6-8.
Xing, Z., L. Chow, H. Rees, F. Meng, S. Li, B. Ernst, G. Benoy, T. Zha and L. M. Hewitt.
2013. Influences of sampling methodologies on pesticide-residue detection in stream
water. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 64(2): 208-218.
41
2015
Appendix A: Critical Habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will in
Canada
Table A-1. Critical habitat units (10 x 10 km standardized UTM squares) within
which critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will is found in Manitoba. Critical
habitat occurs where the criteria described in Section 7.1 are met.
10 x 10 km
standardized
n
Grid Square ID
UTM Grid Square Coordinates
o
Land tenure
p
Easting
Northing
14LE48
340000
5980000
Non-federal Land
14MC93
490000
5730000
Non-federal Land
14MD66
460000
5860000
Non-federal Land
14MD76
470000
5860000
Non-federal Land
14MD87
480000
5870000
Non-federal Land
14MD95
490000
5850000
Non-federal Land
14MF80
480000
6000000
Non-federal Land
14NB56
550000
5660000
Non-federal Land
14NB87
580000
5670000
Other federal Land/ Non-federal Land
14NB96
590000
5660000
Non-federal Land
14NC23
520000
5730000
Non-federal Land
14NC53
550000
5730000
Non-federal Land
14ND16
510000
5860000
Non-federal Land
14PA66
660000
5560000
Non-federal Land
14PA76
670000
5560000
Non-federal Land
14PA85
680000
5550000
Non-federal Land
14PB70
670000
5600000
Non-federal Land
14PB79
670000
5690000
Non-federal Land
14PB97
690000
5670000
Other federal Land/ Non-federal Land
42
10 x 10 km
standardized
n
Grid Square ID
2015
o
Land tenure
p
Easting
Northing
14PV64
660000
5440000
Non-federal Land
14PV89
680000
5490000
Non-federal Land
14QA11
710000
5510000
Non-federal Land
15TQ94
290000
5440000
Non-federal Land
15TS96
289996
5660000
Non-federal Land
15UR08
300000
5580000
Non-federal Land
15UR18
310000
5580000
Non-federal Land
15UR29
320000
5590000
Non-federal Land
15US05
300000
5650000
Non-federal Land
15US06
300000
5660000
Non-federal Land
15US21
320000
5610000
Non-federal Land
15US35
330000
5650000
Non-federal Land
15UT37
330000
5770000
Non-federal Land
Total: 32 critical habitat units
n
Based on the standard UTM Military Grid Reference System (see http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-sciences/geographyboundary/mapping/topographic-mapping/10098), where the first 2 digits represent the UTM Zone, the following 2 letters indicate the
100 km x 100 km Standardized UTM grid, followed by 2 digits to represent the 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid containing all or a
portion of the critical habitat unit. This unique alphanumeric code is based on the methodology produced from the Breeding Bird
Atlases of Canada (See http://www.bsc-eoc.org/ for more information on breeding bird atlases).
o
The listed coordinates are a cartographic representation of where critical habitat can be found, presented as the southwest corner
of the 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid squares containing all or a portion of the critical habitat unit. The coordinates may not fall
within critical habitat and are provided as a general location only.
p
Land tenure is provided as an approximation of the types of land ownership that exist at the critical habitat units and should be
used for guidance purposes only. Accurate land tenure will require cross referencing critical habitat boundaries with surveyed land
parcel information.
43
2015
Table A-2. Critical habitat units (10 x 10 km standardized UTM squares) within which
critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will is found in Ontario. Critical habitat occurs
where the criteria described in Section 7.1 are met.
10 x 10 km
standardized
q
Grid Square ID
r
Land tenure
s
Easting
Northing
15VQ11
410000
5410000
Non-federal Land
15VQ21
420000
5410000
Non-federal Land
15VQ31
430000
5410000
Non-federal Land
16CV80
380000
5400000
Other Federal Land / Non-federal Land
16GS25
720000
5150000
17LM66
360000
5160000
Non-federal Land
17MG28
420000
4680000
Non-federal Land
17MG38
430000
4680000
Non-federal Land
17MH28
420000
4780000
17MH38
430000
4780000
Non-federal Land
17MK61
460000
4910000
Non-federal Land
17MK69
460000
4990000
Federal Protected Area / Non-federal Land
17MK78
470000
4980000
Non-federal Land
17MK79
470000
4990000
Non-federal Land
17ML40
440000
5000000
17ML50
450000
5000000
17ML60
460000
5000000
17ML69
460000
5090000
17ML70
470000
5000000
17ML71
470000
5010000
17MM04
400000
5140000
Non-federal Land
44
10 x 10 km
standardized
q
Grid Square ID
2015
r
Land tenure
s
Easting
Northing
17NH32
530000
4720000
Non-federal Land
17NH41
540000
4710000
Federal Protected Area (Big Creek National
Wildlife Area) / Non-federal Land
17NH42
540000
4720000
Non-federal Land
17NH52
550000
4720000
Non-federal Land
17NH61
560000
4710000
Federal Protected Area (Long Point National
17NH69
560000
4790000
Non-federal Land
17NH71
570000
4710000
Federal Protected Area (Long Point National
17NH79
570000
4790000
Non-federal Land
17NK88
580000
4980000
Non-federal Land
17NK96
590000
4960000
17NL37
530000
5070000
17NL43
540000
5030000
Non-federal Land
17NL62
560000
5020000
Non-federal Land
17NL70
570000
5000000
Non-federal Land
17NL87
580000
5070000
Non-federal Land
17NL88
580000
5080000
Non-federal Land
17NN86
580000
5260000
Non-federal Land
17PH35
630000
4750000
Non-federal Land
17PJ77
670000
4870000
Non-federal Land
17PJ87
680000
4870000
Non-federal Land
17PJ98
690000
4880000
Non-federal Land
45
10 x 10 km
standardized
q
Grid Square ID
2015
r
Land tenure
s
Easting
Northing
17PK17
610000
4970000
Non-federal Land
17PK25
620000
4950000
17PK46
640000
4960000
Non-federal Land
17PK53
650000
4930000
17PK54
650000
4940000
17PK55
650000
4950000
Non-federal Land
17PK56
650000
4960000
Non-federal Land
17PK57
650000
4970000
Non-federal Land
17PK64
660000
4940000
Non-federal Land
17QJ38
730000
4880000
Non-federal Land
17QK03
700000
4930000
17QK14
710000
4940000
17QK23
720000
4930000
17QK24
720000
4940000
17QK26
720000
4960000
Non-federal Land
17QK32
730000
4920000
17QK34
730000
4940000
17QL07
700000
5070000
Non-federal Land
18TP77
270000
4780000
Non-federal Land
18TQ63
261440
4930000
Non-federal Land
18TQ64
261808
4940000
18TQ74
270000
4940000
18TQ75
270000
4950000
46
10 x 10 km
standardized
q
Grid Square ID
2015
r
Land tenure
s
Easting
Northing
18TQ93
290000
4930000
Non-federal Land
18TR74
270000
5040000
Non-federal Land
18TR88
280000
5080000
Non-federal Land
18TR96
290000
5060000
18TR98
290000
5080000
18UP25
320000
485000
18UP46
340000
486000
Federal Protected Area (Prince Edward Point
National Wildlife Area) / Non-federal Land
18UP88
380000
488000
Non-federal Land
18UQ03
300000
4930000
Non-federal Land
18UQ28
320000
4980000
Non-federal Land
18UQ43
340000
4930000
Non-federal Land
18UQ54
350000
4940000
Non-federal Land
18UQ63
360000
4930000
Non-federal Land
18UQ67
360000
4970000
Non-federal Land
18UQ72
370000
4920000
18UQ73
370000
4930000
Non-federal Land
18UQ74
370000
4940000
18UQ75
370000
4950000
Non-federal Land
18UQ80
380000
4900000
18UQ82
380000
4920000
18UQ83
380000
4930000
18UQ92
390000
4920000
47
10 x 10 km
standardized
q
Grid Square ID
2015
r
Land tenure
s
Easting
Northing
18UQ93
390000
4930000
18UQ95
390000
4950000
18UR04
300000
5040000
Non-federal Land
18UR06
300000
5060000
Non-federal Land
18UR16
310000
5060000
Non-federal Land
18UR17
310000
5070000
Non-federal Land
18UR18
310000
5080000
18UR25
320000
5050000
Non-federal Land
18UR28
320000
5080000
18US00
300000
5100000
18VQ01
400000
4910000
Non-federal Land
18VQ03
400000
4930000
18VQ04
400000
4940000
18VQ05
400000
4950000
18VQ12
410000
4920000
Non-federal Land
18VQ22
420000
4920000
18VQ27
420000
4970000
Federal Protected Area (Rideau Migratory
Bird Sanctuary) / Non-federal Land
18VQ37
430000
4970000
Federal Protected Area (Rideau Migratory
Bird Sanctuary) / Non-federal Land
18VQ38
430000
4980000
18VR10
410000
5000000
Non-federal Land
18VR12
410000
5020000
Non-federal Land
18VR22
420000
5020000
48
10 x 10 km
standardized
q
Grid Square ID
18VR82
Easting
Northing
480000
5020000
2015
r
Land tenure
s
Non-federal Land
q
r
s
parcel information.
49
2015
critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will is found in Quebec. Critical habitat occurs
where the criteria described in Section 7.1 are met.
10 x 10 km
standardized
t
Grid Square ID
u
Land tenure
v
Easting
Northing
17PN26
620000
5260000
Non-federal Land
17PP45
640000
5350000
Non-federal Land
17PP55
650000
5350000
Non-federal Land
18UR38
330000
5070000
18UR47
340000
5070000
18UR48
340000
5080000
18UR85
380000
5050000
18UR93
390000
5030000
18UR95
390000
5050000
18US33
330000
5130000
18VR19
410000
5040000
18VR14
410000
5090000
18VR24
420000
5040000
18VR26
420000
5060000
Non-federal Land
18VR28
420000
5080000
Non-federal Land
18VR35
430000
5050000
Non-federal Land
18VR47
440000
5070000
Non-federal Land
18VR54
450000
5040000
Non-federal Land
18VR55
450000
5050000
Non-federal Land
18VT10
410000
5200000
Non-federal Land
18WQ59
550000
4990000
Non-federal Land
Other Federal Land / Non-federal
Land
Land
Land
Non-federal Land
Land
Land
Other Federal Land
Land
Land
Land
50
10 x 10 km
standardized
t
Grid Square ID
2015
u
Land tenure
v
Easting
Northing
18WQ69
560000
4990000
Non-federal Land
18WQ88
580000
4980000
Land
18WQ89
580000
4990000
Non-federal Land
18WQ98
590000
4980000
Land
18WQ99
590000
4990000
Non-federal Land
18WR56
550000
5060000
Non-federal Land
18WR66
560000
5060000
Non-federal Land
18WR90
590000
5000000
Non-federal Land
18WR98
590000
5080000
Non-federal Land
18WR99
590000
5090000
Land
18XQ09
600000
4990000
Non-federal Land
18XR00
600000
5000000
Land
18XR10
610000
5000000
Non-federal Land
18XR29
620000
5090000
Land
18XR46
640000
5060000
Non-federal Land
18XR50
650000
5000000
Non-federal Land
18XR51
650000
5010000
18XR52
650000
5020000
18XR60
660000
5000000
Non-federal Land
18XR61
660000
5010000
Non-federal Land
18XR62
660000
5020000
Non-federal Land
18XR73
670000
5030000
Non-federal Land
18XR78
670000
5080000
Non-federal Land
Land
Land
51
10 x 10 km
standardized
t
Grid Square ID
2015
u
Land tenure
v
Easting
Northing
18XR89
680000
5090000
Non-federal Land
18XR96
690000
5060000
Non-federal Land
18XS74
670000
5140000
18XV60
660000
5400000
18YR08
700000
5080000
Non-federal Land
18YR18
710000
5080000
Non-federal Land
18YR19
710000
5090000
Non-federal Land
18YR28
720000
5080000
Non-federal Land
18YS00
700000
5100000
Non-federal Land
18YS10
710000
5100000
18YS20
720000
5100000
18YS21
720000
5110000
Non-federal Land
18YS30
730000
5100000
Non-federal Land
18YS31
730000
5110000
Non-federal Land
19BM71
270000
5110000
Non-federal Land
19BM72
270000
5120000
Non-federal Land
19BM82
280000
5120000
Non-federal Land
19CM06
300000
5160000
Non-federal Land
19CM16
310000
5160000
Non-federal Land
19CM26
320000
5160000
Non-federal Land
19DP43
440000
5330000
Land
Land
Land
Land
Land
52
2015
at
u
v
parcel information.
53
2015
critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will is found in New Brunswick. Critical habitat
occurs where the criteria described in Section 7.1 are met.
10 x 10 km
standardized Grid
w
Square ID
x
Land tenure
y
Easting
Northing
19FL96
690000
5060000
19GL17
710000
5070000
19GL19
710000
5090000
19FN24
620000
5240000
Non-federal Land
20LT01
300000
5210000
Other Federal Land /
Non-federal Land
Non-federal Land
Non-federal Land
Non-federal Land
w
x
y
parcel information.
54
2015
Figure A-1. Critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will in Manitoba occurs within the 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM
grid squares indicated (red outline), where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. This Standardized
national grid system indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found; detailed critical habitat
mapping is not shown.
55
2015
Figure A-2. Critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will in Ontario occurs within the 10 x 10 km Standardized UTM grid
squares indicated (red hatched outline), where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are met. This
Standardized national grid system indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is found; detailed
critical habitat mapping is not shown.
56
2015
Figure A-3. Critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will in Quebec occurs within the 10 x 10 km Standardized
UTM grid squares indicated (red hatched outline), where the criteria and methodology set out in Section 7.1 are
met. This Standardized national grid system indicates the general geographic area within which critical habitat is
found; detailed critical habitat mapping is not shown.
57
2015
Figure A-4. Critical habitat for the Eastern Whip-poor-will in New Brunswick occurs within the 10 x 10 km
Standardized UTM grid squares indicated (red hatched outline), where the criteria and methodology set out in
Section 7.1 are met. This Standardized national grid system indicates the general geographic area within which
critical habitat is found; detailed critical habitat mapping is not shown.
58
2015
Appendix B. Effects on the Environment and Other Species
A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery
planning documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental
Assessment of Policy, Plan and Program Proposals8. The purpose of a SEA is to
incorporate environmental considerations into the development of public policies, plans,
and program proposals to support environmentally sound decision-making and to
evaluate whether the outcomes of a recovery planning document could affect any
component of the environment or any of the Federal Sustainable Development
Strategy’s 9 (FSDS) goals and targets.
Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general.
However, it is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental
effects beyond the intended benefits. The planning process based on national
guidelines directly incorporates consideration of all environmental effects, with a
particular focus on possible impacts upon non-target species or habitats. The results of
the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself, but are also summarized below
in this statement.
All species that depend on aerial insects for prey such as bats, swallows, and
specifically, bird species at risk including: the Chimney Swift (Chaetura pelagica), the
Common Nighthawk (Cordeiles minor), the Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi),
the Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) may benefit from the recommended
approaches for Eastern Whip-poor-will, namely by increasing the availability of insect
producing habitats. These species are also important for integrated pest management.
Nonetheless, some species, including other species at risk, may prefer different forest
conditions than the Eastern Whip-poor-will, which needs open areas for nesting.
Recovery actions for the species must be integrated with best practices for other
songbird species, especially where the best practices may conflict.
The possibility that the present recovery strategy inadvertently generates negative
effects on the environment and on other species was considered. The majority of
recommended actions are non-intrusive in nature, including surveys and outreach. We
conclude that the present recovery strategy is unlikely to produce significant negative
effects.
8
9
http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=B3186435-1
http://www.ec.gc.ca/dd-sd/default.asp?lang=En&n=CD30F295-1
59

Eastern Whip-poor-will - Registre public des espèces en péril

Transcription

Similar documents

The truth about… The truth about… habitats

Brochure - Habitat for Zoomanity A Life Science Webquest

Chamise Chaparral - Nature Bytes Video

Ecosystem Connections: who, what, where, when Remember

Activity 22

Attachment 1 Summary of Huntsman Site Biodiversity Action

January 2014 - St. Joseph Habitat for Humanity

Camp Shelby Conservation Programs

Habitat Hammerings - Northwoods Habitat for Humanity

2014_June_habitat Happenings Newsletter_WEB